IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20

- 0421 Filed June 30, 2021

KELLY ANGSTROM and CHERYL ANGSTROM , Plaintiff s
- Appell ants
,

vs.
CALHOUN COUNTY, IOWA, MICHAEL COOPER, CARL LEGORE and SCOTT JACOBS , Defendant s
- Appell ees ,

_________________________________ CALHOUN COUNTY, IOWA, Counterclaim Plaintiff,

vs.
KELLY ANGSTROM and CHERYL ANGSTROM, Defendants to Counterclaim.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Adria Kester
, Judge.

Lessors Kelly and Cheryl Angstrom appeal a district court order declaring
their lease agreement with Calhoun C ounty void

. AFFIRMED.

Ernest Kersten
, Fort Dodge , for appellant s

. Aaron W. Ahrendsen, John C. Werden, and Curt S. Steger of Eich Werden
Steger & Ahrendsen, P.C.
, Carroll , for appellee s

.

Considered by May, P.J. , and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.2

MAY , Presiding Judge

.
Contracts entered “ in contravention of a statute are void, and Iowa courts

will not enforce ” them. Bank of the W. v. Kline
, 782 N.W.2d 453, 462 (Iowa 2010);

see Pike v. King , 16 Iowa 49, 52 (1864)

. T he district court declared a lease
agreement void because Calhoun County (the County) failed to comply with Iowa

Code sections 331.361 and 331.305 ( 2019)

. Lessors Kelly and Cheryl Angstrom
appeal. We affirm.
I. Factual Summary
The story of this case begins with Ted and Jan George , who are not parties

. The Georges owned property located on Twin Lakes Road in Rockwell City. In

2006, the Georges had a dispute with Calhoun County about the extent of their

property. Both side s knew a quiet title action was “the one way” to resolve their
dispute. But both sides wanted to avoid litigation . So, as a compromise , the
County and the Georges entered into a lease agreement.
Significantly, the lease agreement did not resolve the parties’ dispute over
the extent of the Georges’ property. But it did lease the right to keep docks in

North Twin Lake to the Georges . In return, the Georges agreed to pay $1 per year.

The lease’s t erm was fifty years.
Later that year, the Angstroms bought the Georges’ property, includi ng their

interest in the lease

. Over a decade later, in 2017, the c ounty a ttorney raised
concerns that the Angstroms had breached the lease agreement by, among other
things, attempting to limit the public’s access to the lake

. Then in 2018, the c ounty

a ttorney advised the Angstroms that the lease had been terminated because of

their alleged breaches. In a separate letter, the c ounty a ttorney contended the3

lease was “void ab initio” because , before approving it, the Calhoun Board of
Supervisors had not followed the notice requirements of section 331.305.
This litigation followed. The parties filed cross

- motions for summary
judgment. The district court concluded the lease was void. The Angstroms appeal.

II. Standard of Review

“We review a district court ’ s summary judgment ruling ‘for correction of

errors at law.’” Bandstra v. Covenant Reformed Church , 913 N.W.2d 19, 36 (Iowa
2018) (quoting Walderbach v. Archdiocese of Dubuque, Inc. , 730 N.W.2d 198, 199
(Iowa 2007)). Summary judgment is proper if the record shows “that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter o f law.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3).

III. Analysis

Here
, the facts are undisputed
, and the legal issues are fairly narrow. First,

the Angstroms contend that, because the lease agreement did not trigger section
331.361(2), the C ounty was not required to comply with the notice requirements of

331.305. Section 331.361(2)(a) provide s :

In disposing of an interest in real property by sale or exchange, by lease for a term of more than three years, or by gift, the following procedures shall be followed, excep t as otherwise provided by state law: The board shall set forth its proposal in a resolution and shall publish notice of the time and place of a public hearing on the proposal, in accordance with section 331.305. [ 1 ]

1 Section 331.305 provides:

Unless otherwise provided by state law, if notice of an election, hearing, or other official action is required by this chapter, the board shall publish the notice at least once, not less than four nor more than twenty days before the date of the election, hearing, or other action, in one or more newspapers which meet the4

We look for the meaning of statutes in their texts, in the “words chosen by the
legislature.” State v. Childs , 898 N.W.2d 177, 184 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted).
In the Angstroms’ view, section 331.361(2) did not apply because the
agreement was not a “lease” or any other “dispos[ition] of an interest in real
property.” We disagree. Numbered paragraph 1 of the “lease agreement” s t ates:

“ Lease of Disputed Property. Calhoun County, Iowa hereby leases to [the]
George[s], their successors and assigns the Property as described below and

shown on Attachment A of this Agreement. ” The description “below” is a set of
boundaries for real estate. And “Attachment A” is a picture of land.

It is true, of course, the lease agreement has some severe limitations

. Paragraph 5 clarifies: “The Property is being leased

. . . solely for the purpose of
placing a dock

. . . .” But its limited scope does not change the lease’s basic

character

. And it does not change our view that, as a matter of law, the lease

agreement was a “lease” of “an interest in real pr operty ” for purposes of

section 331.361(2).

Because section 331.361(2) applied, the County was required to comply
with the notice requirements of section 321.305. And no one claims those
requirements were met. It would appear, therefore, the lease is void. See Miller

v. Marshall C n ty. , 641 N.W.2d 742, 750

– 51 (Iowa 2002) (“ If a municipality fails to
appropriately exercise its authority or comply with statutory procedures, the

contract is void

. ”).

requirements of section 618.14. Notice of an election shall also comply with section 49.53.5

But the Angstroms claim the lease is saved by a curative provision, Iowa
Code section 589.31. It provides:

All deeds and conveyances of land executed by or purporting to be executed by the governing body of a city or county, and placed of record more than ten years earlier, which deeds or conveyances purport to sustain the record title , are legalized and valid, even though the record fails to show that all necessary steps in the conveyance and deeding of the property were complied with. The deeds and conveyances are legalized and valid as if the record showed that the law had been complied with, and that the conveyances and deeding had been du ly authorized by the governing body of the city or county.
Iowa Code § 589.31 ( emphasis added).
As the district court recognized, the key question under section 589.31 is
whether the lease agreement constituted a “deed [] [or] conveyance of land

. . .
purp ort[ing] to sustain the record title.” The Angstroms do not claim the lease

agreement was a “deed.” Instead, they argue that if the agreement is a “lease,” it
should also be considered a “conveyance of land.” Moreover, the Angstroms note,

the lease has been on file for more than ten years. I n the Angstroms’ view, these
facts are enough to trigger section 589.31

. We disagre e. We assume without deciding that a lease of real property
rights

— however limited in scope

— might qualify as a “conveyance[] of land” for
purposes of section 589.31. See Iowa Code § 4.1(13) (“ The word ‘ land ’ and the
phrases ‘ real estate ’ and ‘ real property ’ include lands, tenements, hereditaments,
and all rights thereto and interests therein, equitable as well as legal

. ” (e mphasis

added ) ); but see Tenney v. Atl. Assocs. , 594 N.W.2d 11, 16 (Iowa 1999) ( noting,
in the context of apartment leases, “ the traditional analysis of a lease as being a

conveyance of an interest in land

— with all the medieval connotations this often6

brings

— was reappraised, and found lacking in several respects ” (citation
omitted) ).

As the district court understood , however, a “conveyance[] of land” only
triggers section 589.31 if it “ purport [s] to sustain the record title .” And the
Angstroms do not argue the lease “ purport [s] to sustain the record title .” So we

conclude section 589.31 does not apply.

I V

. Conclusion

The district court was correct in dec laring the lease agreement void.

AFFIRMED.