Opinion
No. 2-669 / 01-1801
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, James Brown, Judge.
Tamara Adkins appeals a district court ruling granting Max and Nancy Ingram an injunction and awarding them damages for lost rents based on the finding an easement existed on Adkins' property. AFFIRMED.
James Sayre of James L. Sayre, P.C., Clive, for appellant.
Brian Rickert and Robert Andeweg of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Max and Nancy Ingram filed a petition requesting injunctive relief based on the assertion Tamara Adkins had built a fence which interfered with an easement for ingress and egress over land owned by Adkins running to property owned by the Ingrams. The petition also sought damages for lost rents occasioned by the erection of the fence which allegedly precluded the Ingrams from renting an apartment on their property. The district court granted the injunction requiring Adkins to remove the fence and awarded the Ingrams damages of $8,659.28 based on the loss of rental income. Adkins appeals.
Upon our de novo review, see Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1995), we affirm the district court's ruling in all respects. The district court concluded clear and convincing evidence supports that when the easement was created, the driveway was already a circular drive. Accordingly, it found the fence constructed by Adkins over the east branch of the drive obstructed the free use of that easement by the Ingrams. We agree. The great weight of the evidence supports that the drive had always been circular in nature. Importantly, Elizabeth Saylor, one of the original drafters of the easement, confirmed the circular drive was in existence at the easement's creation and that the easement was intended to cover both the east and west legs of the drive. See Wiegman v. Baier, 203 N.W.2d 204, 208 (Iowa 1972) (noting the intention of the parties controls in the construction of easements). Furthermore, we affirm the portion of the ruling awarding damages of $8,659.28. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion the deprivation of the full use of the easement resulted in a loss of rental income for the Ingrams. See Austin v. City of Bedford, Iowa, 535 F.2d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 1976) (affirming award of monetary damages for improper interference with an easement).
AFFIRMED.