Roger Halvorson and Constance Halvorson, plaintiffs/counter-claim v. Allen Bentley and Dixie Bentley, defendants/counter-claim plaintiffs/cross-claim Plaintiffs-Appellees/ and Kerndt Brothers Savings Bank, defendant/cross-claim defendant-appellant/cross-appellee.
15-0877
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Kerndt Brothers Savings Bank acquired property containing a duplex and adjacent house; a driveway and walkway provided access to the duplex upper unit.
- The Bank sold the duplex lot to Allen and Dixie Bentley; their recorded warranty deed contained a metes-and-bounds easement across the house lot but did not state a purpose (no words like "access" or "parking").
- The Bank sold the house lot to Roger and Constance Halvorson under a purchase agreement that referenced an easement "for access" and attached the easement centerline as Exhibit C; that purchase agreement was not recorded.
- After the Bentleys parked on the easement/driveway, the Halvorsons sued for declaratory relief claiming the easement was limited to ingress/egress (no parking); the Bentleys counterclaimed against the Bank for breach of warranty and sought defense costs.
- The district court held the easement granted the Halvorsons only "access" (ingress/egress), awarded the Bentleys $7,500 (contract value difference) plus $14,257.28 in attorney fees for defending the title, and entered judgment against the Bank for $21,757.28.
- On appeal, the court considered timeliness, parol-evidence/statute-of-frauds issues, and whether the recorded Bentley deed or the earlier unrecorded Halvorson purchase agreement controlled the easement scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Halvorson/Bentleys) | Defendant's Argument (Bank/Bentleys) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the easement: does it include parking? | Halvorsons: easement limited to "access" (ingress/egress) per their purchase agreement | Bentleys/Bank (as seller historically): easement as recorded in Bentley deed permits reasonable use including parking | Court: Bentley deed controls; easement includes parking (reverse district court) |
| Which instrument controls: recorded Bentley deed vs. unrecorded Halvorson purchase agreement? | Halvorsons: their earlier agreement contemplated access-only easement | Bentleys: recorded warranty deed with metes-and-bounds governs notice and scope | Court: recorded Bentley deed governs; Halvorsons had duty to inquire; deed controls |
| Evidentiary challenges: statute of frauds and parol evidence admissibility | Bank: parol evidence/statute of frauds bar extrinsic evidence to vary deed | Bentleys/Halvorsons: ambiguity exists; extrinsic evidence admissible to determine parties' intent | Court: statute of frauds satisfied (written deed); ambiguity permitted parol evidence — trial evidence admissible; no error |
| Timeliness of cross-appeal / appeals | Halvorsons & Bank: Bentleys’ cross-appeal untimely as to new issues | Bentleys: timely cross-appeal within rules after Bank’s appeal | Court: Bank’s post-trial motion tolled appeal time; Bentleys’ cross-appeal timely under appellate rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Ernst v. Johnson Cty., 522 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1994) (whether case tried at law or in equity determines standard of review)
- Gray v. Osborn, 739 N.W.2d 855 (Iowa 2007) (determination of easement rights is generally equitable)
- Van Sloun v. Agans Bros., 778 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2010) (contract actions treated as actions at law; attorney-fee principles)
- Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 2011) (statute-of-frauds and reception of oral evidence reviewed as errors at law)
- Gaede v. Stansberry, 779 N.W.2d 746 (Iowa 2010) (covenant of warranty can entitle covenantee to recover attorney fees incurred defending title)