Ronald Jensen, Arlene Jensen, Dale and Bonnie Knutson Trust, Dorothy J. Heintz and L&C Farm LLC v. Lauris Olson, Linda Murken, Lisa Heddens, in their Official Capacity as Drainage District Grant 5 Trustees, Story County Assessor and Story County Treasurer
21-0204
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- Story County Drainage District Grant #5 investigated annexing adjacent westerly land, retained an engineer, but the annexation was not completed.
- The district assessed landowners within the district to recover costs associated with the failed annexation.
- Landowners filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging the levies violated Iowa Code chapter 468 and asserting the statutory §468.83 appeals process did not apply because their petition attacked the validity of the trustees’ assessments.
- Trustees moved to dismiss, arguing the landowners had an exclusive statutory remedy (appeal under §468.83–.84) or, where appropriate, mandamus; they also raised standing and failure-to-state-a-claim defenses.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the landowners appealed, and the court of appeals considered whether the statutory appeal was the exclusive remedy and whether the petition pleaded facts to render the trustees’ actions void.
- The court of appeals affirmed: the statutory appeal under chapter 468 was the exclusive remedy and the petition did not allege facts showing the trustees’ proceedings were void (which would permit an independent suit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy to challenge drainage-district assessment | Landowners argued an equitable declaratory action could void an illegal assessment | Trustees argued appeal under Iowa Code §468.83–.84 (or mandamus when appropriate) is the exclusive remedy | Held: Statutory appeal is exclusive; petition dismissed for failing to pursue it |
| Whether independent suit allowed because proceedings were void (Voogd exception) | Landowners contended proceedings were effectively void (remonstrance/notice issues) and thus could bring an independent action | Trustees: petition alleged no facts showing proceedings were void | Held: Petition failed to plead facts showing proceedings were void; Voogd exception inapplicable |
| Timeliness of appeal | Landowners filed notice within 30 days of denial of reconsideration; argued timely | Trustees challenged timeliness based on nature of reconsideration motion | Held: Appeal was timely because notice was filed within 30 days after denial of a timely Rule 1.904(2) reconsideration motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Cent. & Pacific R. Co. v. Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 816 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 2012) (appellate courts may affirm on any alternative ground presented)
- Voogd v. Joint Drainage Dist. No. 3-11, 188 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1971) (independent suit allowed when proceedings are not merely irregular but void)
- Whisenand v. Van Clark, 288 N.W. 915 (Iowa 1939) (statutory appeal is exclusive remedy for assessment challenges)
- Petersen v. Sorensen, 185 N.W. 42 (Iowa 1921) (where a statutory remedy exists, it must be followed for assessment disputes)
- Opat v. Ludeking, 666 N.W.2d 597 (Iowa 2003) (a judgment entered without notice is normally void)
- Board of Water Works Trs. of City of Des Moines v. SAC Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 890 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2017) (mandamus is proper to compel a statutory duty by a drainage district)
- Hicks v. Franklin Cnty. Auditor, 514 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 1994) (notice requirements apply when estimated repair costs exceed statutory thresholds)