Background
Todd and Kim Bogenschutz own a rural Boone County acreage divided by a deep ravine. Both sides contain tillable land, but only the southern portion connects to a public road. Although a path crosses the ravine, it cannot currently accommodate farming equipment.
For decades, neighboring landowner Griess Investment, LLC allowed the Bogenschutzes and their farm tenants to cross its property with farming equipment to reach approximately fourteen tillable acres on the northern portion. Griess revoked that permission in March 2023. The Bogenschutzes then sought a declaratory judgment establishing an easement by necessity; Griess asserted counterclaims for trespass, crop damage, and soil compaction.
After a bench trial, the district court denied both the requested easement and Griess’s counterclaims. Evidence showed that modifying the Bogenschutzes’ own path for farming equipment would cost about $173,000, while tax returns reflected rental-real-estate losses during the years the northern farmland was rented and a profit in 2024, when it was not rented. The Bogenschutzes appealed the denial of the easement.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing the equitable claim de novo, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that the Bogenschutzes failed to prove entitlement to an easement by necessity. It therefore affirmed the denial of their declaratory-judgment claim.
The court agreed with the district court’s reasoning, which rested on the financial burden an easement would impose on Griess, the lack of demonstrated financial damage to the Bogenschutzes, and their failure to establish that an easement was necessary when unity of title was severed in 1963.
The appellate court resolved the case through a memorandum opinion. It concluded that a full opinion would neither improve upon the district court’s analysis nor develop or clarify Iowa law.
Key Takeaways
- Difficulty or expense in accessing part of a property does not, by itself, establish an easement by necessity.
- A claimant must establish the required necessity at the time the commonly owned parcels were severed.
- Courts may consider the parties’ financial evidence and the burden a claimed easement would impose when assessing necessity.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that longstanding permissive access across neighboring land does not automatically become an easement by necessity when permission is withdrawn. Property owners seeking such an easement must prove the doctrine’s requirements, including necessity at the historical moment of severance.
The memorandum disposition leaves existing Iowa easement law unchanged while illustrating the importance of evidence concerning alternative access, economic harm, burdens on the neighboring property, and the circumstances surrounding the original division of title.