Middle Road Developers, L.C. v. Windmiller Design and Development Company, No. 7-953/07-0425 (Iowa App. 1/16/2008)
| Decision Date | 16 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 7-953/07-0425,7-953/07-0425 |
| Parties | MIDDLE ROAD DEVELOPERS, L.C., RICHARD W. CURTIS, TRACEY L. CURTIS, RINO C. DELLA VEDOVA, CURTIS A. SCHNELL and BENNA LEA SCHNELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WINDMILLER DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation and CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary Howes, District Associate Judge.
Defendants-appellants appeal from a district court order enjoining the development of a parcel of land. AFFIRMED.
Tricia Spratt Fairfield of Vollertsen, Britt & Gorsline, Davenport, for appellant, Windmiller Design and Development Company.
Michael Walker and Patrick Vint of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Davenport, for appellant, City of Bettendorf.
Terry Giebelstein and Wendy Meyer of Lane & Waterman, L.L.P., Davenport, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
In this case, we consider whether a note on a plat map can create a use restriction running with the land, thereby preventing a city from selling a parcel of land to a developer without the use restrictions noted on the plat map. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the trial court's injunction.
Appellee Middle Road Developers, L.C., is the owner of real estate platted as Century Heights Twelfth Addition in the city of Bettendorf. At the time the area was being developed, Robert Fick, principal developer for Middle Road, was told by Bettendorf's planning staff that the city required outlots be set aside in the creek area of the addition for use as a stormwater detention area. The dedication of the stormwater management area in the addition was part of a larger regional stormwater detention facility created by the city and was consistent with the city's comprehensive use map.
Middle Road did not resist the city's requirement of the outlots for green space. In February of 2003, Middle Road conveyed outlot A to the city via a warranty deed, for $27,240, which was below the market price of the land. The deed was prepared by the city's attorney.
The general notes on the plat map of the Twelfth Addition include the following recitation:
ALL OF OUTLOT A IS A SEWER, DRAINAGE AND DETENTION BASIN EASTMENT. OUTLOT A IS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. IT SHALL BE USED AS A RECHARGE-INFILTRATION-DETENTION AREA WITH NATIVE VEGETATION MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA.
In addition to being consistent with the city's requirements, the designation of outlot A made the residential housing lots adjacent to outlot A more valuable than other lots in the area.
Appellees Richard and Tracey Curtis purchased lot 21 in Century Heights Eleventh Addition, which backed up to outlot A, in May 2001. At that time, Richard Curtis spoke with head city planner, Mark Brockway, about outlot A. Brockway told Curtis that the green space area would remain in its natural state and the city could not change that designation. In May of 2005, the Curtises contacted Fick about building a larger home on lot 16 of Century Heights Sixteenth Addition, which adjoins outlot A. At that time, Tracey Curtis spoke with city planner, Gregory Beck, who assured her outlot A was for water retention only and nothing could be built on it.
Appellee Rino Della Vedova owns lot 17 of Century Heights Twelfth Addition, which adjoins outlot A. He purchased the lot from Craig Windmiller of Windmiller Design and Development Company, who also built Della Vedova's home on the lot. Prior to the purchase, he viewed the plat map of the Twelfth Addition, including the dedication language regarding outlot A. Windmiller also told him that outlot A was to remain green space.
Appellees Curtis and Benna Lea Schnell own lot 16 of Century Heights Twelfth Addition, which adjoins outlot A. Benna Lea testified that they paid a premium for the lot because it adjoined outlot A, they built a house that architecturally takes advantage of the green space, and their use and enjoyment of the property would be drastically affected by a house being built on outlot A.
In mid 2005, Windmiller approached the city about buying all or a portion of outlot A because he had a buyer interested in building there. The city determined that outlot A was larger than necessary for stormwater management. The city published a notice regarding the proposed sale in the August 25, 2005 Bettendorf News, but did not otherwise notify any of the surrounding homeowners of the proposed sale.
On September 6, 2005, the city sold the eastern portion of outlot A to Windmiller, who owned a contiguous lot, for the same amount the city had purchased it from Middle Road. Windmiller subsequently requested the land be re-platted as part of a lot in Fieldstone Pointe Second Addition, intending to build a single family residence on the land. The city approved the re-platting.
In the fall of 2005, Windmiller regraded the eastern portion of outlot A, causing the native vegetation to be removed from the property. It was at this time that the appellees discovered the eastern portion of outlot A had been sold.
On November 16, 2005, appellees Middle Road, Curtis, Della Vedova, and Schnell filed a petition for temporary and permanent injunction against Windmiller. On March 2, 2006, the appellees amended the petition to include the City of Bettendorf. Following a December 5-6, 2006 trial, the court issued an order enjoining Windmiller and the city from using any portion of outlot A for any purpose other than as a recharge-infiltration-detention area with native vegetation. Windmiller and the city appeal.
Because "[a] request for an injunction invokes the court's equitable jurisdiction," our review is de novo. Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118 121 (Iowa 1995). Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court's fact findings, especially concerning the credibility of witnesses. Id. We review a decision by the trial court to allow an exception to the statute of frauds and admit oral evidence of a contract for correction of errors at law. Kolkman v. Roth, 656 N.W.2d 148, 151 (Iowa 2003).
The appellants argue the note on the plat map does not create a covenant or use restriction running with the land. Windmiller also argues a strict test should be applied in construing agreements that restrict the free use of property.
It is well settled that "restrictions on the free use of property are strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce them, . . . and doubts will be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of property." Stockdale v. Lester, 158 N.W.2d 20, 22 (Iowa 1968) (citations omitted). This strict rule of construction, however, "`should never be applied in such a way as to defeat the plain and obvious purpose of the restriction.'" Leverton v. Laird, 190 N.W.2d 427, 432 (Iowa 1971) (quoting Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Bldg. & Dev. Co., 371 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)). "[T]he true rule is that the intention of the parties may be ascertained from the language of the instrument or may be implied from the surrounding circumstances." Id. (citation omitted). A more liberal approach recognizes building restrictions "more as a protection to the property owner and the public rather than as a restriction on the use of property." Id. at 431 (citations omitted).
While it may have been previously unclear whether a plat map could create a covenant or use restriction running with the land, the recent case of Gray v. Osborn, 739 N.W.2d 855 (Iowa 2007), makes it clear that the plat map alone can provide the necessary language to bind successive owners of real estate to restrictions or limitations on its use. In Gray, noting that "[a]n easement created via a plat map is valid under Iowa law," the court looked to the intention of the parties to determine the existence of an easement. Gray, 739 N.W.2d at 861 (citing Maddox v. Katzman, 332 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982)). The court held that, because the plat clearly denoted an intention to create an easement, and the purchasers had notice, the plat established an easement. Id...
To continue reading
Request your trial