Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-193 / 11-0201 Filed June 13, 2012 JACK R. CROWLEY and VERONICA CROWLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. JOHN CROWLEY and CAROL CROWLEY, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.

John Crowley appeals the district court's ruling denying his claim of adverse possession to certain property and awarding a writ of possession to the property to his brother, Jack Crowley. AFFIRMED.

Eddie R. Broders and Douglas W. Simkin, Tipton, for appellants. Gregg Geerdes, Iowa City, for appellees.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.

2

MULLINS, J. John Crowley appeals the district court's decision denying his adverse possession claim, and granting his brother's, Jack Crowley's, petition for a writ of possession to property in Cedar County. John asserts the district court erred in interpreting certain evidence submitted at trial, erred in interpreting the exclusivity requirement of adverse possession, erred in failing to consider whether he had color of title under Iowa Code section 560.2(2) (2009), and erred in failing to consider the ten-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code section 614.1(5). For the reasons stated below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. This appeal involves a family dispute over property. The disputed land is an approximate four-acre section of a larger nineteen-acre parcel located in Cedar County. In 1981 the same section of land was the subject of a lawsuit filed by the title owner, B.L. Anderson, against Jack and his then wife, and John T. and Patricia Crowley, Jack and John's parents. The district court ruled in 1983 that B.L. Anderson was the rightful owner of the entire nineteen-acre parcel. B.L. Anderson subsequently brought a forcible entry and detainer action against Jack and his father in 1984 to have them removed from the land in question. The district court denied the request as it was filed more than thirty days after the prior court order. The action was dismissed, but the court acknowledged B.L. Anderson did have other options available in order to remove the Crowleys from the land. No other action was taken and the Crowley family continued to occupy and use an approximate four-acre portion of the property. Jack eventually

3

purchased the entire nineteen-acre parcel in December of 2001 from the then title owner.1 John, along with his father, was the title owner to a 4.5-acre piece of property located immediately east and adjacent to the property in dispute. 2 This land was referred to at trial as Lot A. John rented the land to Jack at various times from 1989 until 2009. Jack lived on Lot A in a mobile home with his second wife, Veronica. Lot A is land-locked and only accessible through a

driveway across the property in dispute in this case. Jack filed the lawsuit giving rise to this appeal on July 17, 2009, after John refused to renew the lease to Lot A and placed concrete barricades blocking the driveways on the disputed property leading to Lot A. John also erected a fence to the south of the driveway, which prevented Jack from gaining access to livestock he kept to the south and east of the disputed property. Jack's petition sought for the court to issue an order that the defendants had no right of possession of the disputed property, and to issue him a writ of possession. John filed a counterclaim asserting he owned the property based on adverse possession.3

1

B.L. Anderson deeded the property to Mercy Hospital Endowment Foundation in 1984. The Foundation deeded the property to Michael and Sheryl Koch in 1986, who then deeded the property to John Kuehnle three months later. Kuehnle owned the property from 1986 until he sold it to Jack Crowley in 2001 for $20,000. 2 Jack initially owned this property until his divorce from his first wife in 1988, when he deeded the property to his father. The father then deeded the property to John and himself as joint tenants with the right of survivorship in 1995. When the father died in 2007, John became the sole owner of Lot A. 3 The counterclaim was asserted by all defendants to the action, which included Patricia Crowley; John and Jack's mother; John, as trustee of the Patricia Crowley Revocable Trust; and John and Carol Crowley. The district court granted partial summary judgment

4

The case proceeded to a bench trial on October 25, 2010. The court issued its decision December 15, 2010, finding Jack and Veronica were the proper owners of the entire nineteen-acre parcel, and denying John and Carol's adverse possession counterclaim. The district court found the entire Crowley family used the disputed land since 1981, and therefore, the adverse possession counterclaim "fails for failure to prove exclusive use for at least ten years by the defendants." The court found an easement by acquiescence across the disputed property in favor of titleowner John so that he could gain entry to Lot A. The district court also awarded Jack and Veronica $1500 in damages it found Jack incurred when John blocked the driveway and erected a fence, preventing Jack and Veronica from accessing their livestock and necessitated the reopening of another entrance to the property. John appeals. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW. As this case was tried in equity, our review is de novo. Mitchell v. Daniels, 509 N.W.2d 497, 499 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). We examine all the facts and the law to decide the issues anew. Brede v. Koop, 706 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Iowa 2005). However, we give weight to the district court's findings, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).

to Jack with respect to his claim against Patricia Crowley. The court found because Patricia had been a party to the previous 1983 lawsuit, she was not able to now claim adverse possession of the property in good faith. Also at the close of trial, John dismissed the counterclaim with respect to the Trust. Thus, the only parties remaining after trial were John and his wife, Carol, and Jack and his wife, Veronica.

5

III. ADVERSE POSSESSION. To establish adverse possession one must establish "hostile, actual, open, exclusive and continuous possession, under a claim of right or color of title, for at least ten years, by clear and positive proof." Carpenter v. Ruperto, 315 N.W.2d 782, 784 (Iowa 1982). The law presumes possession of land under regular tile, so the doctrine of adverse possession is strictly construed. Mitchell, 509 N.W.2d at 499. The district court in this case concluded John could not prove he had exclusive use of the property for at least ten years. The district court found the entire Crowley family has made use of the land in question for various purposes. Jack and Veronica used the land by creating trails, hunting, planting various plant species, cutting and selling firewood, and operating four-wheeled vehicles. John and his father used the land to pasture their livestock, and to grow crops. John asserts on appeal the district court erred in interpreting the exclusivity requirement of adverse possession to mean "exclusive use," when in fact it means "exclusive possession." He cites Huebner v. Kuberski, 387 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986), in support of his assertion. In Huebner, two adjoining landowners disputed where the boundary line was located. 387 N.W.2d at 145

Download JACK R. CROWLEY and VERONICA CROWLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. JOHN CROWLEY and

Iowa Law