Title: Presbytery of Southeast Iowa v. Harris
Citation: 226 N.W.2d 232
Docket Number: 2-56711
State: Iowa
Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 1975

226 N.W.2d 232 (1975) The PRESBYTERY OF SOUTHEAST IOWA, a corporation, Appellee, v. Pleasant HARRIS et al., Appellants. No. 2-56711. Supreme Court of Iowa. February 19, 1975. *233 William L. Meardon, of Meardon, Sueppel, Downer &amp; Hayes, Iowa City, for appellants. Oehler, Radig &amp; Hoy, Iowa City, for appellee. Heard en banc. RAWLINGS, Justice. Plaintiff commenced a quiet title action. Some of the named defendants, as alleged holders of a reversionary interest, challenge applicability and constitutionality of The Code 1971, Section 614.24, quoted infra. On motion by plaintiff a summary judgment was ultimately entered adverse to defendants and those appearing now appeal. We affirm. By petition filed July 28, 1971, the Presbytery of Southeast Iowa, a Corporation, *234 asserts in relevant part: (1) H. B. and Elizabeth Cline, by warranty deed bearing date November 18, 1898, conveyed lots 9 and 10, Block 5, Cline's Addition to Hills Siding, Johnson County, Iowa to the First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City; (2) the aforesaid conveyancing instrument contains this pivotal provision: (3) Presbytery acquired title to said property January 17, 1970, under warranty deed given by the First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City; (4) defendants, as holders of an alleged reversionary interest under the aforesaid 1898 deed, claim a right in the real estate therein described by reason of a breach of the quoted provision which apparently occurred sometime after July 4, 1965; and (5) any such claim asserted by defendants stands extinguished because of their failure to comply with the provisions of Code § 614.24. Five of the named defendants, as heirs of H. B. and Elizabeth Cline, allege by answer they possess a reversionary interest in the above described property. They also thereby aver Code § 614.24 is inapplicable to their interest and alternately, if applicable, is "unconstitutional as far as any extinguishment of the rights and interests of these Defendants in the above described real estate is concerned for the reason that it deprives these Defendants and other owners or holders of reversionary interests in real estate of their property and rights without notice and without due process of law contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa." May 11, 1972, plaintiff moved for an adjudication on law points (Iowa R.Civ.P. 105) regarding the constitutionality of Code § 614.24. June 19th trial court adjudged said enactment constitutional and applicable to defendants. July 17, 1973, plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment thereby alleging defendants had not filed notice as to any claimed reversionary interest within one year after July 4, 1965, as required by § 614.24. August 21st trial court entered summary judgment for plaintiff from which this appeal is taken. In support of a reversal defendants Faye Amish, H. Ray Cline, Robert Cline, Thomas B. Cline, William Cline and Marjorie Harr, here contend § 614.24 (1) unconstitutionally impairs contract rights; (2) is unconstitutionally vague; (3) authorizes a divestment of property rights in violation of substantive due process; (4) is violative of procedural due process in that no reasonable notice is afforded a claimant, owning a reversionary interest, of his obligation to record said interest in order that the same may not be extinguished. Since the first two assignments above set forth are here asserted for the first time they will not be entertained save and except as incident to a determination of other issues properly presented. See Schnabel v. Display Sign Service, Inc., 219 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 1974); State v. Willis, 218 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Iowa 1974). As to the first contention see, however, Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280, 290, 7 L. Ed. 679 (1830); Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, 6 Ill. 2d 486, 130 N.E.2d 111 (1955); Evans v. Finley, 166 Or. 227, 111 P.2d 833, 836-837 (1941). And with regard to the second assertion see generally Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart, 191 N.W.2d 758, 772 (Iowa 1971); "Marketable Title LegislationA Model Act for Iowa", 47 Iowa L.Rev. 389 (1962); Code §§ 4.1(2), 4.2, 4.4. *235 The third and fourth assignments will be considered in their respective order. I. At the threshold it is understood the above stated 1898 deed proviso created what is known as a "possibility of reverter." See Reichard v. Chicago, B. &amp; Q. R. Co., 231 Iowa 563, 570, 1 N.W.2d 721 (1942); Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, supra; 4A Thompson on Real Property, § 1978 (1961); Simes, Law of Future Interests, § 13 at 28 (2d ed. 1966); Restatement, Property, § 154(3); 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estates, §§ 182-183. II. In approaching the task at hand we accord recognition to some other statutes not here directly involved because a reading thereof will disclose an underlying motivating purpose common to all. See Chicago &amp; North Western Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, 176 N.W.2d 788, 792-793 (Iowa 1970); 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 56.02 (4th ed. 1973); 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, §§ 155-158; 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 366, p. 801. Code § 614.17 has been described as the first of our "Marketable Title Acts." See 2 Patton, Titles, § 563 at 443 (2d ed. 1957); 1 Flick, Abstract and Title Practice, § 357 at 345 (2d ed. 1958). In material part said statutory enactment recites: Standing under the spotlight in the case at hand is Code § 614.24, which provides: And Code §§ 614.29-614.38, collectively referred to as our "Marketable Record Title Act", constitute the most recent and comprehensive *236 legislative effort to simplify land transfers in this jurisdiction. See Marshall, Iowa Title Opinions and Standards, at 77-81 (Cum.Supp.1970). We are persuaded the aforesaid statutes clearly represent a salutary attempt on the part of our General Assembly to keep pace with public demands for needed reforms in the field of land title conveyancing practices. As this court observed in Chicago &amp; North Western Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, 176 N.W.2d at 793, they are "designed to shorten the period of search required to establish title in real estate and give effect and stability to record titles by rendering them marketable and alienablein substance to improve and render less complicated the land transfer system." See also Basye, Trends and ProgressThe Marketable Title Acts, 47 Iowa L.Rev. 261 (1962); Aigler, Constitutionality of Marketable Title Acts, 50 Mich.L.Rev. 185 (1951); American Bar News, Vol. 19, No. 10, at p. 1 (November 1974). The necessity for such reformational action has been vigorously articulated by distinguished members of the legal profession. In a 1974 Report of the Special Committee on Residential Real Estate Transactions of the American Bar Association is this relevant statement at 14-16: Also pointing up the demands of the times are these unpublished remarks by the Honorable Warren E. Burger to the opening *237 session of the American Law Institute, May 21, 1974, at Washington, D. C.: It is thus apparent the statutes heretofore noted were enacted in furtherance of the general welfare. See Evans v. Finley, 111 P.2d at 837-838; 47 Iowa L.Rev. at 426. But this is not alone instantly dispositive. III. We therefore turn to defendant's claim that § 614.24 serves to divest them of property rights in violation of constitutional due process standards. At the outset this court has repeatedly held a strong presumption of constitutionality attends statutes regularly enacted by our General Assembly. See e. g., Keasling v. Thompson, 217 N.W.2d 687, 689-690 (Iowa 1974) and citations. Referring again to Chicago &amp; North Western Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, 176 N.W.2d at 792, we said Code § 614.24: "`* * * is a true statute of limitations designed to bar claims which have no longer any social or economic utility and, at the same time, to provide for periodic renewal of active claims.' Marshall, Iowa Title Opinions and Standards, 12.3(E-1), page 70, pocket supplement (1966)." See also 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 12-20. It is further evident § 614.24 is remedial or procedural in application. See Chase Securities Corporation v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314, 65 S. Ct. 1137, 1142, 89 L. Ed. 1628 (1945), reh. den. 325 U.S. 896, 65 S. Ct. 1561, 89 L. Ed. 2006; Home Building &amp; Loan Ass'n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 429-430, 54 S. Ct. 231, 236-237, 78 L. Ed. 413 (1934); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 41.09 (4th ed. 1973); 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 21-22. And, since § 614.24 permits extinguishment of an existing reverter interest in the absence of a recordation thereof, it clearly operates retrospectively as well as prospectively. See Schnebly v. St. Joseph Mercy Hosp. of Dubuque, Iowa, 166 N.W.2d 780, 782 (Iowa 1969); Iowa Land Title Examination Standards, ch. 11 at 43, Iowa State Bar Association (5th ed. 1974); 47 Iowa L.Rev. at 414; 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 31-33; 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 354; 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, § 404; 53 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions §§ 2-4; 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 421; 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 418. Furthermore, retrospective applicability of the statute in question does not render it unconstitutional per se. See Van Voorhis v. District of Columbia, 236 F. Supp. 978, 981 (D.D.C.1965); Thompson v. Thompson, *238 78 N.W.2d 395, 399 (N.D.1956); Adelman v. Adelman, 58 Misc.2d 803, 296 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1004 (1969); Yoli v. Yoli, 55 Misc.2d 416, 285 N.Y.S.2d 470, 472 (1967). IV. Defendants take the position that since their reverter interests did not vest until after enactment of § 614.24, the Act served to unconstitutionally deny them a vested future interest before right of enforcement thereof matured. We find no viability in that contention. It is conceded this court has not heretofore been called upon to resolve the precise constitutional question now before us. Therefore, pertinent authorities from other jurisdictions, though not binding on this court, will be considered. See Simpson v. Low-Rent Housing Agency of Mount Ayr, Iowa, 224 N.W.2d 624 (Iowa, 1974). In Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800 (1957), the Minnesota Marketable Title Act was found to be a constitutionally permissible limitations enactment barring a reverter interest. The statute there involved, M.S.A. § 541.023, stated in relevant part: Plaintiff Wichelman's right of reverter had not been recorded as statutorily required and in holding as aforesaid the court stated, 83 N.W.2d at 820-821: Parenthetically we note this observation by Professor Basye as to the significance of Wichelman, supra. "Over 60 lawyers and law firms throughout the state appeared and filed briefs as amici curiae because of the decision's obvious potential effect on land titles." Basye, Clearing Land Titles, § 180 at 417 (2d ed. 1970). Hiddleston v. Nebraska Jewish Education Society, 186 Neb. 786, 186 N.W.2d 904 (1971), involved the question as to whether a statute limiting duration of a possible reverter and right of entry or reentry for breach of a condition subsequent violated the United States and Nebraska constitutional due process or contract provisions. Noticeably the Nebraska statute did not afford owners of such barred estates an opportunity to file claims in order to preserve their reverter interests. Yet the court determined the enactment did not impinge on any constitutional due process or contract rights held by owners of reverter interests. In so holding the court declared, 186 N.W.2d at 907: See also Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System, at 467 (1953). In Town of Brookline v. Carey, 355 Mass. 424, 245 N.E.2d 446 (1969) plaintiff municipality acquired a parcel of land on which a school building was to be constructed. This acquisition was effected subject to a statute which created a possible reverter in event the property should be no longer used for school purposes. Apparently such usage terminated in 1933. In a later quiet title action the Town of Brookline contended defendant's (grantor's heir) reverter interest stood barred by M.G.L.A., c. 260, § 31A which stated: Defendant asserted the above quoted statute was not applicable to a reverter which vested prior to enactment of M.G. L.A., c. 260, § 31A. In the same vein defendant contended the Act applied only to reverter interests which were not vested when said statute was enacted. The Act was held applicable to all reverters whether vested before or after January 2, 1955, date of the enactment. It is clear, however, the constitutionality of M.G.L.A., c. 260, § 31A was tested only in light of reverter interests which vested before the effective date of said statute. See Town of Brookline, supra, 245 N.E.2d at 448. Defendants urge us to accept, as controlling in this case, the decision in Board of Education of Central Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Miles, 15 N.Y.2d 364, 259 N.Y.S.2d 129, 207 N.E.2d 181 (1965). Briefly stated, we respectfully decline defendants' invitation and in so doing adopt the position taken by Marshall, Iowa Title Opinions and Standards, at 80, n. 1 (Cum.Supp.1970): Defendants also lean heavily on Biltmore Village v. Royal, 71 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1954), wherein the court held a statute requiring legal action be commenced within one year from the effective date of the enactment in order to preserve restrictive covenants, violated constitutional proscriptions, i. e., the contract clause (Art. 1, § 10, United States Constitution) and due process clause. Biltmore, supra, is to us readily distinguishable from the case at hand. As heretofore noted it was predicated on a statute which required commencement of an action in order to protect a reverter interest, not merely the filing of notice in order to preserve the reverter claim. See in this regard Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d at 822; cf. Marshall, Iowa Title Opinions and Standards, 12.3(E-1) (Cum.Supp.1970). On the other hand we neither here adopt nor express any opinion as to the propriety of the above holding in Biltmore. V. At this point a Federal Court decision concerning the instantly involved issue comes into play. Selectmen of Town of Nahant v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 1076 (D.Mass.1968), involved a factual setting comparable to that presented in Wichelman, supra. More specifically, the statute quoted in Town of Brookline, cited above, was invoked to bar an action for enforcement of a reverter interest not vested when the statutory limitation period expired. Plaintiffs commenced an action for recovery of land conveyed in 1898 to defendant. The 1898 deed provided for reversion to the grantor in event the land should cease usage as a life saving station. Defendant alleged that as of January, 1964, the aforementioned use ended and by virtue of M.G. L.A., c. 260, § 31A, defendant held title free and clear of any plaintiff-asserted reversionary interest. Admittedly the reverter right did not come into being until after January 1, 1964, and no statutorily required statement was ever filed by plaintiff. In upholding constitutionality and applicability of the aforesaid statute the court stated, 293 F.Supp. at 1078: We also recognize the numerous commentators who persuasively argue that statutes premised on the theory the legislature may require periodic filing in order to preserve rights do not run afoul of constitutional limitations. See Basye, Clearing Land Titles, at 384-385, 476-508; Simes and Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing by Legislation, at 268-270, 289-292 (1960); Aigler, A Supplement to "Constitutionality of Marketable Title Acts"1951-1957, 56 Mich.L.Rev. 225 (1957); Marshall, Reforming Conveyancing Procedure, 44 Iowa L.Rev. 75 at 80 (1958). VI. And, as in Hiddleston, supra, 186 N.W.2d at 907, we are impressed with the *242 following articulation of those factors which a court should consider in analyzing the consequences of retroactive legislation: Defendants' assertion to the effect § 614.24 denied them due process of law because it retroactively eliminated vested rights before right of enforcement arises simply fails under any applicable test. The public interest served by § 614.24 is self-evident. Its cognate enactment, Code § 614.17, in effect for over 40 years, serves to bar interests which have not been protected by timely filing of the required claim. It is to us evident the above cited authorities reasonably and logically establish the constitutional propriety of marketable title statutes which operate retrospectively to bar an action on reverter interests. Furthermore, Wichelman and Town of Nahant, both supra, uphold this bar even where the reverter interest is contingent at time of expiration of the limitation period allowed for preservation thereof. We subscribe to these views. Code, § 614.24 requires nothing more than the filing of a notice of claim after which enforceability thereof is extended for an additional 21 years. "In other words, we do not have before us a statute which operates to bar the claimant's remedy before he has had an opportunity to assert it." Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d at 822. Therefore, § 614.24 does not abolish or alter any vested right. Rather, it modifies the procedure for effectuation of the remedy by conditionally limiting the time for enforcement of the right. This court is therefore satisfied and now holds, Code § 614.24 did not serve to unconstitutionally deprive defendants of any vested rights. VII. It is further apparent the time period allowed defendants for the preservation of their remedy under § 614.24 is not constitutionally unreasonable. See Selectmen of Town of Nahant v. United States, 293 F. Supp. at 1078; Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d at 818; Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, 130 N.E.2d at 115; 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 31-35. VIII. The remaining issue to be considered is whether Code § 614.24 denied defendants procedural due process because vested property rights were extinguished without adequate notice and opportunity for hearing. Despite dicta contained in Board of Education of Central Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Miles, 15 N.Y.2d 364, 259 N.Y.S.2d 129, 207 N.E.2d 181, 183 (1965), we conclude, enactments of our state legislature and publication thereof constitute adequate notification to all concerned as to what they contain. See Woodruff &amp; Son v. Rhoton, 251 Iowa 550, 554, 101 N.W.2d 720 (1960); 58 Am.Jur.2d, Notice, § 21; 66 C.J.S. Notice § 13. Defendants' contention regarding absence of notice is without substance. IX. In summary we conclude and accordingly hold, defendants' contentions that *243 § 614.24 authorizes a divestment of property rights in violation of (1) substantive and (2) procedural due process, are each and both devoid of merit. Costs are taxed to appealing defendants Faye Amish, H. Ray Cline, Robert Cline, Thomas B. Cline, William Cline and Marjorie Harr. Affirmed. MOORE, C. J., and MASON, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP and McCORMICK, JJ., concur. REES, REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ., dissent. REES, Justice (dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority in this case and respectfully dissent. The salient facts of this case are worth repeating. Plaintiff brought an action to quiet title to certain real estate located in the town of Hills Siding in Johnson County by its petition filed July 28, 1971. The deed conveying title to plaintiff's grantors and immediate predecessors in title, executed and delivered in 1898, contained the following provision: Defendants are heirs of plaintiff's grantors and owners of the future interest created by the 1898 deed. They contested plaintiff's quiet title action on grounds they have an immediate possessory interest in the property subject of the 1898 deed because the condition in that deed was breached sometime after July 4, 1965. Plaintiff contends any interest defendants may have acquired in the property by virtue of the 1898 deed was extinguished when defendants failed to file a claim within one year after July 4, 1965 as required by § 614.24, The Code. Defendants admit they failed to file a claim pursuant to said section, but argue the statute is unconstitutional and ineffective to deprive them of their interest in the property. I. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: Section 9, Article I, of the Iowa State Constitution similarly provides: The majority characterizes the interest created by the quoted provision of the 1898 deed as a "possibility of reverter". That interest descended to defendants here as heirs of plaintiff's grantors. Under Iowa law a possibility of reverter is both inheritable and alienable. Jacobs v. Miller, 253 Iowa 213, 111 N.W.2d 673, 675; Reichard v. Chicago, B. &amp; Q. R. Co., 231 Iowa 563, 1 N.W.2d 721. Cf. Trustees of Schools of Township No. 1 v. Batdorf, 6 Ill. 2d 486, 130 N.E.2d 111. Having such characteristics, a possibility of reverter must be considered a species of property. Persons such as these defendants who possess a possibility of reverter are therefore to be accorded the due process protection guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. At issue here is the constitutionality of § 614.24, The Code. Sophistry aside, the basic question before us is whether the statute deprives defendants of their interest in property without due process by operating to divest them of that interest when they fail to meet the statutory filing requirements. I am convinced that question must be answered affirmatively. The statute should be declared unconstitutional. II. The majority views § 614.24 as a "`true statute of limitations designed to bar claims . . .' (citing Chicago &amp; Northwestern Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, 176 *244 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Iowa 1970), [which] does not abolish or alter any vested right [but merely] modifies the procedure for effectuation of the remedy by conditionally limiting the time for enforcement of the right." This, the classic defense of a statute such as § 614.24, involves no small measure of semantic gymnastics. See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800. It is a defense I cannot abide. A possibility of reverter is not simply a claim or right but an interest in property. Jacobs v. Miller, supra. See Simes, Law of Future Interests, 2d Ed., 1966, § 13, p. 28 et seq. Section 614.24 attempts to convert that interest in property into a mere right of action subject to defeasance if not timely asserted. Once that is recognized, it is clear the statute operates not simply to "bar claims" but to divert persons such as these defendants of existing property interests. It is not therefore a true statute of limitations. See Simes, Law of Future Interests, supra, § 51, pp. 111-112. Even assuming a possibility of reverter is but a claim or right and not an interest in property, the characterization of § 614.24 as a statute of limitations does not stand close scrutiny under circumstances such as those presented here. Defendants' "claim" to the real estate in question "accrued" only when the condition in the 1898 deed was "breached". That breach apparently occurred sometime after July 4, 1965. As applied, § 614.24 would have required defendants to assert their "claim" before it accrued and operates potentially to bar their remedy before the "right" to enforce it matured. I know of no true statute of limitation which operates in that fashion. See Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 v. Miles, 15 N.Y.2d 364, 207 N.E.2d 181; Simes, Law of Future Interests, supra at 111. Town of Brookline v. Carey, 355 Mass. 424, 245 N.E.2d 446, which held an act limiting enforcement of reversionary interests that have "accrued" can constitutionally be applied to reverters which occurred prior to its enactment, supports this position. III. Because § 614.24 does far more than simply bar claims, and in effect divests persons of their existing property interests, it cannot in the end be justified as a mere statute of limitation. Accordingly, the question must be whether the statutory procedure designed to forestall divestiture comports with constitutional guarantees of due process. The statute contains no provision for notice. Statutory enactment alone was evidently deemed sufficient notice for those persons whose interests in property would be affected. I am not persuaded that manner of notice is "such as one desirous of actually informing . . . might reasonably adopt to accomplish it" (the constitutional standard for due process). Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &amp; Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S. Ct. 652, 657, 94 L. Ed. 865. Cf. Lane v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 230 Iowa 973, 299 N.W. 553 (decided nine years before Mullane). Moreover, I am frankly unable to reconcile recent decisions broadening the due process rights of persons possessing interests in personalty with the procedural burden placed on persons under § 614.24 to take affirmative action to protect their interests in realty. See Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S. Ct. 1820, 23 L. Ed. 2d 349. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 1997-1998, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556; Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Barr, 200 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 1972). See also North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. (opinion announced by United States Supreme Court, 1975; appearing in ___ U.S. ___, 95 S. Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751). Surely owners of interests in personalty are entitled to no more due process protection in Iowa than are owners of interests in realty. IV. The majority characterizes the Iowa marketable title legislation as "a salutary attempt on the part of our General Assembly to keep pace with public demands for needed reforms in the field of land title conveyancing practices." I agree with that *245 characterization. The majority goes on to justify § 614.24 as a statute "designed to bar claims which have no longer any social or economic utility and, at the same time, to provide for periodic renewal of active claims." (citing Chicago &amp; Northwestern Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, supra, at 792). There we part company. Whatever its social utility, § 614.24 operates to deprive persons of their interests in property without due process. Paraphrasing a legislative commission report quoted by the New York Court of Appeals in Board of Education v. Miles, supra, where a similar statute was found unconstitutional as applied to a possibility of reverter, it is almost certain that an appreciable number of persons owning ancient but useful restrictions and other valuable interests in property similar to that owned by these defendants will lose them without compensation through failure to file claims under § 614.24, a prerequisite to their continued vitality. Such failure may occur under a variety of circumstances. Unless the owner of the interest has regular occasion to be on the watch for new legislation or unless he is regularly engaged in transactions involving real estate, he might never have learned of the requirement for filing a claim under the statute. For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied § 614.24 of the Code violates both substantive and procedural constitutional guarantees of due process. Trial court erred in upholding the statute and in refusing to recognize defendants' interest in the subject property. I would reverse trial court. REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ., join this dissent.