From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Snyders v. Moser

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 6, 2002
No. 1-613 / 00-741 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)

Opinion

No. 1-613 / 00-741.

Filed February 6, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lyon County, JOSEPH J. STRAUB, Judge.

The Mosers have been granted permission to appeal from a district court order granting the Snyders' application for temporary injunction and allowing the Snyders an easement over the Mosers' land. AFFIRMED.

Brian K. Van Engen of McGill McGill, Rock Valley, for appellants.

Joseph J. Feller of Koopman, Kennedy Feller, Sibley, for appellees Snyders.

Harold D. Dawson of DeKoter, Thole Dawson, P.L.C., Sibley, for appellees McCarty.

Heard by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.


The Mosers have been granted permission to appeal from a district court order granting the Snyders' application for temporary injunction and allowing the Snyders an easement Mosers' land. The Mosers contend the district court erred in finding the Snyders have an easement and in granting the temporary injunction. We affirm.

Jerome and Lavonne Snyders purchased two lots in Lyon County, Iowa in 1990. Their lots were bounded to the north by land owned by Paul and Marjorie McCarty, and to the south by the Big Sioux River. The Snyders' lots were landlocked, but they accessed their property from the north over Adams Street, which runs north/south between section thirty-five and thirty-six on McCartys' property. Adams Street ends one-half mile north of the Snyders' property, so the Snyders would continue south through the McCarty's property.

In January of 1995, Paul McCarty called the Snyders and told them he had a buyer for his farm. He suggested putting an easement in writing. He told the Snyders the buyers wanted to run an irrigation pipe across Snyders' land, so he thought exchanging an access easement for an irrigation easement would be appropriate. The parties signed an easement granting the Snyders the right of ingress and egress over the McCartys' land. The easement was recorded January 30, 1995, and the Mosers signed the real estate contract with the McCartys on February 27, 1995.

The Mosers have since replaced the fence around the southern boundary of the property, but did not replace the gate used by the Snyders for access to their property. They also erected another fence that allegedly interferes with the Snyders' traditional route across the Moser property.

The Snyders filed an action for temporary and permanent injunction, breach of contract, negligence, and punitive damages. Following a hearing, the court granted the Snyders a temporary injunction. The supreme court granted the Mosers' application for interlocutory appeal. The Mosers contend the court erred in finding the Snyders had a valid easement over their land under any theory.

Generally, we will not interfere with the district court's decision to grant a temporary injunction unless the discretion has been abused or the decision violates some principle of equity. Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa 2001). Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 321 states:

A temporary injunction may be allowed:

(a) When the petition, supported by affidavit, shows the plaintiff is entitled to relief which includes restraining the commission or continuance of some act which would greatly or irreparably injure plaintiff, or,

(b) Where, during the litigation, it appears that a party is doing, procuring or suffering to be done, or threatens or is about to do, an act violating the other party's right respecting the subject of the action and tending to make the judgment ineffectual, or,

(c) In any case specially authorized by statute.

In applying these principles to temporary injunctions, courts consider the circumstances confronting the parties and balance the harm that a temporary injunction may prevent against the harm that may result from its issuance. Max 100 L.C., 621 N.W.2d at 181. To succeed in their claim for a temporary injunction, the Snyders were only required to show the likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, not actual success. Id.

We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary injunction to the Snyders. There is sufficient evidence to establish the Snyders would likely succeed in their claim against the Mosers. The Mosers have correctly stated that the trial court assumed the existence of a valid easement. The court did not state its reasons for making this assumption. Our review of the record suggests the agreement between Snyders and McCarty creates an easement over the property in the location ordered in the temporary injunction. Furthermore, the harm to the Mosers in granting the injunction, including the installation of a temporary gate, is minor, while the harm to the Snyders in denying it is great. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Snyders v. Moser

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 6, 2002
No. 1-613 / 00-741 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)
Case details for

Snyders v. Moser

Case Details

Full title:JEROME J. SNYDERS and LAVONNE S. SNYDERS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 6, 2002

Citations

No. 1-613 / 00-741 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2002)