Christ Vision, Inc. v. City of Keokuk
| Decision Date | 25 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-0908 |
| Parties | CHRIST VISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF KEOKUK, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Iowa |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, John M Wright and Michael J. Schilling, Judges.
The owner of a historic church challenges summary judgment rulings in favor of the city, which demolished the dilapidated building.
John Q. Stoltze of Stoltze Law Group, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Patrick J. O'Connell and Daniel M. Morgan of Lynch Dallas, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J. [*]
Christ Vision, Inc. (Christ Vision) owned a historic Unitarian Church in Keokuk.[1]
(Image Omitted)
But the church fell into disrepair.
(Image Omitted)
After years of wrangling with Christ Vision over the church's deteriorating condition, the city persuaded the district court to declare the building to be a nuisance. Christ Vision did not challenge that declaration. The court also ordered the owner to work out a plan with the city for scheduling repairs. If the owner and the city did not agree by March 2017, Keokuk could abate the nuisance or demolish the church. Keokuk received no abatement plan from Christ Vision. So after giving notice to the owners, Keokuk demolished the building.
Christ Vision then sued, contending the city took the church without due process or just compensation in violation of the Iowa Constitution. The owner further claimed that the city trespassed onto the grounds and converted personal property from inside the church. Keokuk successfully moved for summary judgment. Christ Vision now appeals.
While we find a flaw in the district court's analysis of inverse condemnation, we agree with the city that the claim lacks merit. Because Christ Vision did not generate a genuine issue of material fact on any of its claims, summary judgment was proper.
Built in 1876, the former Unitarian Church was "an inspirational, important, and iconic Keokuk landmark."[2] But by 2005 the church was dilapidated. That July, the city sent a letter to the church's owner-Christ Vision, Inc.-asking the owner to address deteriorating brick corners and falling moldings.
Christ Vision took no action for three years. So the city declared the building "unsafe to occupy" and posted a notice on the church in 2008. Keokuk informed Christ Vision that By 2011, the city sent letters to Christ Vision suggesting the church be razed. The city informed the owner that Keokuk was taking bids from demolition businesses.
Over the years, two Christ Vision representatives-Melanie Wells and Christopher Dailey-spoke with city officials about plans to save the church. But none of the plans had funding. In 2014, Dailey and others removed windows and other items from the church despite the notice. Dailey told the city he removed the windows because Christ Vision was planning to re-roof the church and did not want them damaged. A district court ordered the church items be stored on city property. The items were returned to the church that November.
By December 2016, Christ Vision had made no repairs.[3] The owner's failure to address the church's structural issues for five years took a toll on the building. The church now had gaping holes in the roof; fallen plaster and bricks; depressions in the floor; water in the basement; and an assortment of detached boards, moldings, and other debris scattered throughout the building. Keokuk filed a municipal infraction against Christ Vision, asserting the church's deteriorating structure was a nuisance as defined by its municipal code.[4] After a month-long hearing involving "a substantial amount of witness testimony and documentary evidence," the district associate court agreed with the city. The court found that the church's hazardous condition made it a nuisance and ordered abatement.
To abate, the court gave three options. First, Christ Vision could repair the church as specified by the city, including-at minimum-replacing the roof, securing parts of the church that were falling apart, and fixing "any hazardous conditions with the structure that make it unsafe to occupy" as specified by Keokuk. Second, the owner could demolish the church. Or third, Christ Vision could deed the property to Keokuk or another party approved by the city. The court directed the owner to create a written abatement plan and timeline, subject to the city's approval. If the parties did not reach a written accord by March 2017 or another agreed-upon time, Keokuk could "take any action needed to abate the conditions."
When March rolled around, Christ Vision had not yet proposed an abatement plan and had not asked the city for an extension. Even after the owner missed its deadline, the city's attorney wrote to Christ Vision's attorney asking for an abatement plan in April and again in June. The city never heard back. Keokuk notified Christ Vision's attorney of its intent to demolish the church. The city posted the same notice on the church's front door.
In October 2017, Keokuk's city council approved a contract with the lowest-bidding demolition company for the church's destruction. Before this, the city was presented with some abatement ideas by Romain and third parties either by email or at city council meetings. But Romain and the others failed to prove they had funding for these ideas and they were not approved by the city. Christ Vision still had not sent a plan or schedule to the city for approval and had neither repaired nor sold the building.
Finally realizing the need for urgent action, in November Christ Vision sought to enjoin Keokuk from demolishing the church. The district court granted a temporary injunction. The city challenged that ruling, contending improper notice and service. The court dissolved the injunction less than a month later. Christ Vision then applied for another temporary injunction. The court entered an order in January 2018, scheduling a hearing for the end of the month. But Keokuk began demolishing the church before the hearing.[5] Christ Vision launched this lawsuit two years later, alleging Keokuk took its property in violation of the Iowa Constitution. The owner further claimed that the city trespassed onto its property and caused damage. And that Keokuk converted Christ Vision's personal property.
The city moved for summary judgment. Christ Vision resisted. In its statement of proceedings, the court noted that Christ Vision admitted missing the March 2017 deadline. But the court also recognized that Keokuk refused entry into the church due to its unsafe condition and "did take personal property from the building." The court then granted the motion as to Christ Vision's first two claims but denied it for the conversion claim.
Keokuk moved to reconsider the conversion claim. And Christ Vision moved to amend, enlarge, and reconsider the first two claims. The court denied both motions. Following further discovery, the city again moved for summary judgment on the conversion claim. This time, the district court granted the motion.
Christ Vision now appeals, resurrecting all three claims.
We review grants of summary judgment for correction of legal error. Smith v. Shagnasty's Inc., 688 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 2004). Like the district court, we view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here Christ Vision. See Bill Grunder's Sons Const. Inc. v. Ganzer, 686 N.W.2d 193, 196 (Iowa 2004). If the district court correctly applied the law and there was no genuine issue of material fact, we affirm. Id. We consider an issue to be material if its determination affects the suit's outcome. Id. And the dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
"[W]e are obliged to affirm an appeal where any proper basis appears in the record for a trial court's judgment, even though it is not one upon which the court based its holding." Grefe &Sidney v. Watters, 525 N.W.2d 821, 826 (Iowa 1994); accord Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Keil, 176 N.W.2d 837, 842 (Iowa 1970) ().
Christ Vision first argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its constitutional claims contesting Keokuk's actions in abating the church's dangerous condition. The owner contends the city took its property without just compensation, seeking damages under a claim of inverse condemnation.[6] Christ Vision also claims the city violated its due process rights.
Under the Iowa Constitution, a government may not take private property for public use without just compensation. See Iowa Const. Art. I, § 18.[7] As noted, Christ Vision's takings claim is grounded on inverse condemnation. In issuing summary judgment, the district court defined inverse condemnation as "[c]ondemnation of property near a parcel so as to cause the parcel to lose much of its value." Based on that definition, the court found Christ Vision's theory of inverse condemnation was inapplicable.
Trouble is, the district court's definition of inverse condemnation-even if accurate in certain situations-was too narrow. Inverse condemnation is "a generic description applicable to all actions in which a property owner, in the absence of a formal condemnation proceeding, seeks to recover from a governmental...
To continue reading
Request your trial