913 N.W.2d 1
Iowa2018Background
- In 1987 the Iowa Supreme Court (Kempf) remanded and the district court entered an order allowing the owner and “their successors and assigns” to develop six lots in Iowa City with apartments in accordance with pre-1978 R3B zoning; the order also stated that once a use has been developed on any lot, further development of that lot would be subject to then-current zoning.
- Over time Kempf sold the properties; through successive transfers TSB Holdings and an affiliated LLC acquired the lots (including apartment buildings already constructed on parts of lot 50).
- In 2013 the City adopted ordinance 13–4518 rezoning the area consistent with a revised comprehensive plan and imposed a moratorium; TSB submitted site plans proposing new apartment buildings on lots 10, 49, and 51 which the City’s staff and Board denied based on the rezoning.
- TSB sued the City (declaratory relief, takings, certiorari) and separately sought certiorari review of the Board of Adjustment’s denial of the site plan; district court granted summary judgment to the City and ruled against TSB in the certiorari action; the court of appeals affirmed both decisions relying on Dakota.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review, overruled Dakota on the statute-of-limitations point, held the 1987 remand order was enforceable as to TSB (as an assignee), and concluded no prior “use” was established on lots 10, 49, and 51 so TSB could pursue apartment development per the remand order; result: affirm City summary judgment re: rezoning legality but reverse Board judgment and remand with directions to enter judgment for TSB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement of the 1987 Kempf remand order is time‑barred under Iowa Code § 614.1(6) | TSB: statute of limitations runs from accrual (City’s 2013 actions), so enforcement is timely | City/Board: actions "founded on a judgment" are barred 20 years after judgment entry (Dakota) | Court overruled Dakota; § 614.1(6) is a limitations rule that runs from accrual—TSB’s claim accrued in 2013 and is not time‑barred |
| Whether the City’s adoption of ordinance 13–4518 violated the Kempf remand order or was adopted in bad faith | TSB: ordinance was intended to frustrate Kempf rights and illegally interfere with remand order | City: rezoning was valid exercise of legislative police power and not aimed at blocking Kempf/TSB | Court: rezoning was lawful and not adopted in bad faith; summary judgment for City on rezoning upheld |
| Whether TSB qualifies as a “successor[] and assign[]” entitled to enforce the remand order | TSB: it took title through a chain of transfers and is an assignee/successor continuing Kempf’s development plan | Board: TSB is not a successor/assign because transfers were indirect and piecemeal | Court: TSB is an assignee (and effectively successor) within remand order; assignment language covers those who take remotely |
| Whether a "use has been developed or established" on lots 10, 49, 51 (making further development subject to current zoning) | TSB: no buildings/use established on those lots; proposed apartments are original development under remand order | Board: existing development and easements mean further redevelopment; remand order’s clause applies | Court: no use was established on lots 10, 49, 51; construction of apartments there is not "further development or redevelopment," so remand rights apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1987) (original opinion and remand authorizing apartment development on specified lots)
- Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Iowa District Court, 898 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa 2017) (court overruled on statute-of-limitations interpretation in this opinion)
- Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc. v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993) (distinguishing statutes of repose from statutes of limitations)
- Albrecht v. General Motors Corp., 648 N.W.2d 87 (Iowa 2002) (analysis of when a limitations period is a statute of repose versus a limitations rule)
- Bear v. Iowa District Court, 540 N.W.2d 439 (Iowa 1995) (discussing permanence of injunctions and effect of time)