IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0044

Filed April 27, 2016

MIDDLE RIVER FARMS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

LADONNA ANTRIM and

TERESA ANTRIM,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adair County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, 

Judge. 

Landlocked property owners appeal from an order selecting route in 

declaratory judgment action related to private condemnation proceeding. 

AFFIRMED.

Laura N. Martino of Grefe & Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellants.

Matthew J. Hemphill of Bergkamp, Hemphill & McClure, P.C., Adel, for 

appellee.

Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Ladonna and Teresa Antrim filed a private condemnation action against 

an adjoining property owner, Middle River Farms, to obtain access to a 

landlocked parcel of property. In response, Middle River Farms filed this 

declaratory judgment action, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The 

parties agreed the district court should select the condemnation route pursuant to

the statutory criteria set forth in Iowa Code section 6A.4 (2013). The district court 

selected Middle River Farms’ proposed condemnation route rather than the 

Antrims’ proposed condemnation route. The Antrims timely filed this appeal.

I.

For the purposes of grounding the discussion, the exhibits below identify 

the parcels at issue and the proposed condemnation routes.
3

The top image shows section 18, Harrison Township, Adair County, Iowa. 

The Antrims purchased the southernmost forty acres at issue in 1953. The fortyacre parcel is split by the Middle River. The majority of the property is north of 

the Middle River; however, there is a southern portion rendered inaccessible 

from the northern portion because of the Middle River. See Owens v. Brownlie, 

610 N.W.2d 860, 867-69 (Iowa 2000) (concluding “natural obstruction over 

private land makes a portion of the land inaccessible for the purposes of 

condemnation”). The bottom image shows the inaccessible property in more 

detail and the parties’ proposed routes. 

Until 2012, the property across which the Antrims traveled to reach the 

inaccessible property was owned by the Childress family. The Childresses 

allowed the Antrims to access the inaccessible portion of the Antrims’ property by 

following a route along the tree line at the north side of the field (marked as 

Alternate 3). Jack Childress left a grassy strip approximately ten to twelve feet 
4

wide along the tree line for the Antrims to access their land south of the Middle 

River. 

Prior to 2000, the Antrims raised cattle on the landlocked parcel. Since 

2000, the Antrims leased the parcel to various people, most recently Glen Jones, 

who kept cattle on the land until about 2006 or 2007. The Antrims also rented 

the inaccessible portion to two different people for recreational hunting. Teresa 

Antrim told the renters to access the property the same way the Antrims had, 

along the tree line at the north side of the Childresses’ property (alternate 3). 

Members of the Sackett family leased and farmed the Childress property

for many years. Sometime in the early aughts, Richard and Dan Sackett, father 

and son, formed Middle River Farms, L.L.C. Middle River Farms leased and 

farmed the Childress land until 2012, when they purchased it from the 

Childresses. Of the 120 acres owned by Middle River Farms, approximately 76 

acres are tillable; the rest is pasture or timber. Middle River Farms plants row 

crop to the tree line on the north side of the property without leaving a grassy 

strip along the tree line for access to the Antrims’ parcel. The evidence showed 

they had been doing this since 2000. When the Antrims asked for access along 

the route previously used, Richard Sackett said, “Nope, I planted clear to the 

edge.” 

In August 2012 the Antrims decided to sell the landlocked parcel. They 

first offered it to the Sacketts but received no response. In 2013, the Antrims

sold the property to a third party for $88,000, contingent upon demonstrating
5

access to the property by easement. When the Antrims could not obtain an 

easement from the Sacketts, the contingent sale fell through. 

After the failure of the sale, the Antrims filed a private condemnation 

action pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 6A.4. Middle River Farms responded by 

filing this action for declaratory judgment. The parties agreed the district court 

should select the condemned public way. The parties proposed three access 

routes, as identified in the above exhibit. The Antrims favored route three, the 

route they had used historically. Middle River Farms favored route one because 

it provided direct access to the inaccessible property without the loss of crop 

ground. At trial, the Antrims conceded route two was not feasible because it 

would run through the middle of Middle River Farms’ row crop field. The district 

court determined route one was the most feasible route. 

II.

The parties disagree on the standard of review. The Antrims assert 

review is de novo. Middle River Farms asserts review is for the correction of 

legal error. Generally, the standard of review in a declaratory judgment action is 

determined by the manner of trial in the district court. See City of Riverdale v. 

Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 2011). The mere fact the petition was filed 

in equity does not control. See Passehl Estate v. Passehl, 712 N.W.2d 408, 413 

(Iowa 2006). “[W]e consider the pleadings, relief sought, and nature of the case 

[to] determine whether a declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable.” Id. at 

414. The only issue presented at trial in this matter was selection of the 

condemnation route according to statutory criteria, a legal issue. The district 
6

court ruled on objections, normally a “litmus test” or “hallmark” for determining if 

an action is tried at law.1 See id. at 414 n.6; see also Sloun v. Agans Bros. Inc., 

778 N.W.2d 174, 178 (Iowa 2010). The district court’s decision being appealed 

is entitled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment” instead of 

“decree.” See Sutton v. Iowa Trenchless, L.C., 808 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 2011). It is important to note the case before us is not an appeal from a 

private condemnation proceeding; instead, this is an appeal from a declaratory 

judgment action filed in response to a private condemnation proceeding. Given 

the foregoing, we conclude the case was tried at law and our review is for the 

correction of legal error. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; City of Riverdale, 806 

N.W.2d at 652. The district court’s findings are binding on us if supported by 

substantial evidence. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(a). Even though we review 

this case for the correction of legal error based on the manner of trial, we would 

reach the same result on de novo review.

III.

“Although eminent domain, the power to seize private property, is typically 

exercised by governmental bodies, the legislature has conferred a narrow power 

of eminent domain upon private citizens in Iowa. That power is codified in Iowa 

Code section 6A.4(2).” Green v. Wilderness Ridge, L.L.C., 777 N.W.2d 699, 702 

(Iowa 2010). Iowa Code section 6A.4(2) provides, in relevant part:

The condemned public way shall be located on a division, subdivision or 

“forty” line, or immediately adjacent thereto, and along the line which is the 

 

1 This factor is less significant when “the objections were minor and did not have a 

significant effect on the proceedings.” Passehl, 712 N.W.2d at 414; see Horsfield 

Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 452 (Iowa 2013).
7

nearest feasible route to an existing public road, or along a route 

established for a period of ten years or more by an easement of record or 

by use and travel to and from the property by the owner and the general 

public. 

To meet the statutory criteria, the proposed route must be “(1) located adjacent 

to a division, subdivision, or forty line and be the nearest feasible route to an 

existing public road; or (2) along a route established for ten years or more by (a) 

an easement or (b) use and travel by the owner of the property and the general 

public.” Finnegan v. Dickson, No. 14-0143, 2015 WL 405979, at *4 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Jan. 28, 2015); see In re Luloff, 512 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Iowa 1994).

A.

We first address the burden of proof. Middle River Farms sought 

declaratory and injunctive relief. “The burden of proof in a declaratory judgment 

action is the same as in an ordinary action at law or equity. The plaintiff bringing 

the action has the burden of proof, even if a negative declaration is sought.”

Owens, 610 N.W.2d at 866 (internal citations omitted). The supreme court has

“previously determined that the burden of proof in an action to challenge the 

authority of the condemning entity to condemn land rests with the landowner 

whose land is sought to be condemned.” Id. Therefore, the burden of proof rests 

on Middle River Farms.

B.

The Antrims first contend route three should have been selected because 

it had been “established for a period of ten years or more . . . by use and travel to 

and from the property by the owner and the general public.” Iowa Code 

§ 6A.4(2)(b). The district court concluded there was “no evidence that the 
8

general public used any route to travel to the landlocked property” and the 

statutory criteria were thus not satisfied. We conclude the district court’s findings 

are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusions are not erroneous. 

The statute does not define the term “general public.” The Antrims cite 

Phillips v. Watson, 18 N.W. 659, 661 (Iowa 1884), in support of the assertion 

their renters were members of the public. Phillips related to the characterization 

of a route as “public” or “private” and not with the classification of the users of the 

route. 18 N.W. at 160-62. It is inapplicable here. In Good v. Iowa Civil Rights 

Commission, 368 N.W.2d 151, 155-56 (Iowa 1985), the court discussed the 

meaning of “general public” within the context of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Its 

discussion is informative. In that case, the court concluded the term “general 

public” had an expansive meaning encompassing the entire public, as opposed 

to “the public,” which could “mean any group or segment, however characterized, 

of the aggregate of the citizens of a political entity.” Good, 368 N.W.2d at 156. 

In the context of this statute, we conclude the term “general public” should have a 

similarly expansive meaning. In this case, the record shows the only persons 

who used the route were owners and tenants of the landlocked property. This 

does not satisfy the “general public” requirement. See Luloff, 512 N.W.2d at 272 

(holding testimony showing past use of access route by “hunters, mushroom 

hunters, and wood gatherers” was insufficient to establish use by the general 

public).

Furthermore, even if usage by the Antrims and their tenants satisfied the 

“general public” criterion, Middle River Farms established there has not been use 
9

for ten years or more. The evidence showed Middle River Farms planted crop to 

the tree line for a number of years prior to this litigation without leaving an 

accessible route. The testimony showed the route had not been used in some 

time. While this may have been a route the Antrims used in the distant past, it is 

not a route used with any frequency in the last ten years. The district court’s 

findings are supported by substantial evidence and without legal error.

C.

The Antrims next contend the district court erred in not selecting their 

proposed route three because it was “on a division, subdivision or ‘forty’ line, or 

immediately adjacent thereto, and along the line which is the nearest feasible 

route to an existing public road.” Iowa Code § 6A.4(2)(b); see Luloff, 512 N.W.2d 

at 272 (“In the absence of a route previously used for ten or more years by the 

property owner and the general public, the requirement that the route proceed 

adjacent to a division, subdivision, or ‘forty’ line was triggered.”). 

The first statutory requirement is the route “shall be located on a division, 

subdivision or ‘forty’ line, or immediately adjacent thereto.” Iowa Code 

§ 6A.4(2)(b); Luloff, 512 N.W.2d at 272 (noting the court must first consider 

whether the route is along or adjacent to a “division, subdivision, or ‘forty’ line”). 

Chapter 6A does not define these terms. In chapter 354 on Platting—Division 

and Subdivision of Land, and chapter 355 on Standards for Land Surveying, 

“division” is defined as “dividing a tract or parcel of land into two parcels of land 

by conveyance or for tax purposes.” Iowa Code §§ 354.2(6); 355.1(2). The term 

“subdivision” is defined as “a tract of land divided into three or more lots.” Id. §§ 
10

354.2(17); 355.1(10); see City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701

N.W.2d 673, 676 (Iowa 2005). A “forty” line is the boundary of a forty-acre parcel 

of land, which is one-quarter of one-quarter of a section of land under the 

government survey system. See Hanson v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 227 

N.W.2d 157, 159 (Iowa 1975); Finnegan, 2015 WL 405979, at *4; see also Iowa 

Code § 354.2(7) (defining “Forty-acre aliquot part” as “one-quarter of one-quarter 

of a section”). In Finnegan, this court concluded “the legislature intended the 

terms, ’division, subdivision or forty line,’ to mean where land has been divided, 

subdivided, or on the border of a forty-acre tract of land.” 2015 WL 405979, at 

*6.

The selection of Middle River Farms’ proposed route rather than the 

Antrims’ proposed route was not erroneous because only Middle River Farms’ 

proposed route follows or is immediately adjacent to a division, subdivision, or 

forty line. Route one runs closely parallel to the division line between the 

southeast quarter of the section, owned by Middle River Farms, and the 

southwest quarter of the section, owned by a member of the Sackett family, 

individually. The eastern half of route three runs roughly along what would be a 

division or forty line if the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the section 

were divided from the remaining land owned by Middle River Farms. However, 

the southeast quarter of the section is undivided (except for the northwest quarter

of the southeast quarter, which is the inaccessible land at issue); therefore, route 

three does not run along any existing division, subdivision, or forty line. Route 

one is thus the only route that fits the statutory requirement. See id. (holding 
11

“proposed access road approved by the district court, which is not on a division, 

subdivision, or forty line, is not permissible under section 6A.4(2)”).

Even if both routes were along or immediately adjacent to a division, 

subdivision, or forty line, there is substantial evidence that alternative one is the 

nearest feasible route to a public road. The legislature has not defined “nearest 

feasible route,” but our supreme court considered the issue in Green, 777 

N.W.2d at 703-04. The court noted:

Feasible has been defined as “capable of being done, executed, or 

effected: possible of realization,” “capable of being managed, 

utilized, or dealt with successfully,” and “reasonable.” At the core of 

the definition of “feasible,” therefore, are the notions of 

reasonableness and practicality. A determination of which route is 

the most reasonable to all parties involved, moreover, must be 

made on a case-by-case basis.

We note that unlike other state eminent domain statutes, 

section 6A.4(2) does not provide a laundry list of criterion for 

selecting the route of condemnation. The failure of the Iowa 

legislature to establish specific criteria for determining the “nearest 

feasible route” suggests the need for an individualized 

determination that extends beyond a mere determination of which 

route is easiest to construct without consideration of land 

acquisition costs. In this instance, determining the “nearest feasible 

route” of condemnation requires consideration of which route is 

easier to construct and which route will do less harm to the 

neighboring properties.

Id. (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). Considering land 

acquisition costs does not usurp the function of the compensation commission 

established in section 6B.4 “to assess the damages to all property to be taken” 

once an action for private condemnation has been granted. Id. at 704.

With respect to the costs of construction, the preparation of route one is 

undoubtedly more expensive, but the costs are roughly comparable. Route one, 
12

although shorter, is more difficult to construct because the grades on the route 

reach twenty-three to twenty-five percent. See Green, 777 N.W.2d at 703 n.1 

(“Length of the available routes is . . . a factor to be considered in selecting the 

nearest feasible route.”). Further, lower portions of the route would need culverts 

and fill to prevent water from washing out the route. In contrast, route three is 

fairly level. Both routes would need a layer of road rock to make them passable 

in all weather. One estimate for the cost of preparing route three was $12,000. 

The same expert estimated the cost of preparing route one at $40,000. Middle 

River Farms submitted an expert’s estimate covering only the northern one-third 

of route one at $2540. The $2540 estimate encompassed only grading and 

installing culverts and did not include road rock. The district court noted the 

higher estimate was based on reducing the grade of route one to ten percent and 

was “likely high” because the grade did not need to be reduced that dramatically 

to make the road usable. The court found the actual cost would likely fall 

between the two estimates, or roughly $20,000. There is substantial evidence in 

support of this finding.

In addition to considering the costs of preparing the different routes, the 

district court also assessed the impact of the routes on Middle River Farms’ 

property. See id. at 703-04 (stating the district court should assess damage to 

affected property). Route one does no damage to Middle River Farms’ property

because it takes no land out of production. In contrast, the evidence showed 

route three would result in a permanent loss of approximately 1.1 acres of crop 

land, or just under 1.5% of Middle River Farms’ total tillable land. The district 
13

court considered this a “permanent and significant impact” to Middle River Farms’ 

use of its land. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The district 

court’s conclusion that the permanent impact to Middle River Farms, in terms of 

crop loss, was more significant than the one-time construction costs and made 

route one the “nearest feasible” route was not erroneous.

The Antrims contend route one cannot be a condemned public way 

because the statute requires the “nearest feasible route” to access an “existing 

public road.” Relying on Owens, they argue Middle River Farms’ route connects 

only to a class B road, which is not “reasonably adequate for the intended 

purpose.” 610 N.W.2d at 868. In Owens, the court considered the question of

whether a landowner may condemn an access route over land of another if it is 

possible to gain access through the landowner’s own land. Id. at 867. In Owens, 

the “reasonably adequate for the intended purpose” standard was used to 

determine whether the landowner had access to the allegedly inaccessible 

property, i.e. whether the parcel was landlocked, and has no relevance to 

whether the proposed condemned route connects to an “existing public road.” Id.

at 868-69. 

The issue is resolved by the plain language of the statute and controlling 

case law. The statute requires only that the access road connect to an “existing 

public road.” Iowa Code § 6A.4(2)(b). Route one connects to and gives access 

to 190th Street, a class B road. A class B road is an existing public road. See 

Iowa Code § 309.57 (setting forth the A, B, and C classification of county roads). 

This conclusion is supported by Green. In that case, the court noted that a class 
14

B road is a “public road” within the meaning of section 6A.4(2). See Green, 777 

N.W.2d at 703. The Green court concluded, however, that the road was not an 

“existing public road” because the testimony showed the road “exist[ed] only on 

paper and not in reality.” 777 N.W.2d at 703. In other words, there was no 

actual road. There is no such evidence here. 

We conclude the district court did not err in selecting route three as the 

condemned public way. Of the parties’ proposed routes, it is the only route on or 

immediately adjacent to a statutorily-required line. It is also the nearest feasible 

route to an existing public road. The Antrims’ proposed route would cause 

permanent economic loss to Middle River Farms. 

IV.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Mullins, J., concurs; Danilson, C.J., dissents.
15

DANILSON, Chief Judge. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The standard of review applied by the Iowa 

Supreme Court in two cases with similar procedural postures, Owens v. 

Brownlie, 610 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2000), and Green v. Wilderness Ridge, L.L.C., 

777 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2010), was de novo review. Although I concede there are 

some factors existing in this action suggesting the review should be for correction 

for errors at law, at the heart of this action is an issue where equitable 

considerations determine its outcome. I also note the petition sought “such other 

and further relief as this Court may deem equitable and appropriate.” Much like a 

contract action that is generally reviewed for errors at law, I believe issues 

relative to a private condemnation should generally be reviewed de novo. 

Accordingly, I disagree with the majority’s determination of the standard of review 

to apply in this case.

Upon a de novo review, I would conclude Middle River has not met its 

burden of proof. I think the substantial grade and the substantial cost in 

development of the route proposed by Middle River, along with the route’s 

access, which is limited to a class “B” road, result in Middle River’s proposed 

route—route one—not being a feasible route, and it does not provide reasonable 

access. Green, 777 N.W.2d at 703-05 (concluding a level “B” road only existed 

on paper and not in reality and considering the cost of development of the route 

in determining “the nearest feasible route” as provided in Iowa Code section 

6A.4(2)).