Opinion ID: 1761356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court made a careful analysis of the evidence from which we excerpt and adopt the following:

Text: It is undisputed in this case that the plaintiff has held record title to Lot 1 since receiving a warranty deed in 1942, from the heirs of J. H. McAllister, whose predecessors in turn held from government patent. A presumption of ownership follows the legal title and this is such a strong one that it can only be overcome by evidence which is clear, satisfactory and convincing. A preponderance of evidence is not sufficient.    The plaintiff therefore makes a prima facie case justifying the relief which he seeks by showing such legal title.    In order to reach the matters presented on this record it is necessary to briefly review the movements of the river in this locality over an extended period.    Many maps are in evidence   . The left bank of the river, as referred to on the maps and in the testimony, is that which is to the left of the observer looking downstream and, therefore, generally speaking, the left bank is the east side of the river and the right bank the west. In surveys made in 1852 and in 1875, the river was shown to be a considerable distance west of the land in controversy. By 1890, however, it had shifted to the east in a broad arc or loop so that its left or eastern bank had cut off the southwesterly corner of Lot 1. Thereafter, and sometime between 1890 and 1916, it moved somewhat farther to the east and north, forming what is referred to as a cut bank two to fifteen feet high  . This cut bank was east of Lot 1 and the main channel of the river in 1916, was flowing against that bank, thus showing that all of Lot 1 had by this time been completely eroded and cut away. This cut bank marked the most easterly point to which the river progressed. In 1916 the main channel of the river started to move westward.    Eventually,    the river moved approximately two miles to the west of the land in controversy and its channel in 1927 is shown on Exhibit `39.' (reproduced supra) The exact nature of the movement of the river westward and just when it finally reached its 1927 channel is not shown by the record, probably because there were no surveys between 1890 and 1923. In its western progression after 1916, the river characteristically left what are described as the inside chute, which in 1927, was designated on Exhibit `39' as a highwater channel, and the outside chute which ran in a southwesterly direction near the west line of Lot A. This chute carried some water for some time.    By 1928, the outside chute    had fairly well filled with sand, and willows had grown up on a large portion of Lot 1 west of the chute, and willows and timbers had grown up on its east side, extending approximately halfway into Lot 1.    By 1930 the outside chute was completely filled   . But    in the spring and at flood-time, the river would come through this area.    What was the most easterly progression of the river up to 1916, as shown by the cut bank on the exhibits, and did this bank abut on or extend into Lot A?    The court concludes,    that the river did in fact progress to the westerly boundary of or into Lot A. III. Defendant contends that the westerly movement of the river between 1916 and 1927 left a body of land or island between the two chutes and the 1927 bank of the river and that the accretion was to this land and not to the cut bank of the river on the east. The trial court said: An island in a river is a body of land emerging from the bed of the stream and completely surrounded by channels of the river. (Holman v. Hodges, 112 Iowa 74, [84 N.W. 950, 58 L.R.A. 673]; State v. Raymond, 254 Iowa 828, [119 N.W.2d 135].) When such an island emerges from the bed of the river it becomes the property of the state. The area referred to does not in any way conform to the legal concept of an island so that claim can be made that the re-emergence of Lot 1 was by accretion to such an island. The chutes were not normal channels of the river but were just what they were termed by the witnesses, chutes. There was testimony in the record that the 1916 movement of the river was an avulsion and the defendants in their brief claim that this avulsion formed the area between the two chutes and the 1927 east or left bank of the river as an island, referred to as `Flowers Island,' and that the land encompassed within the platted boundaries of Lot 1 accreted to such island. To review all the evidence would unduly extend this opinion. The trial court reviewed the evidence and then said: Under this record, therefore, we have no way of ascertaining what land is claimed to have existed prior to the 1916 shift which was cut off by the avulsion and remained identifiable thereafter. In order to permit the application of the principles of avulsion, two conditions must exist: (1) There must be a sudden shifting of the channel of the river, and (2) A body of land must be cut off so that after the shift it remains identifiable as land which existed before the change of the channel and which never became a part of the river bed. The second requirement is more important than the first. There can be a rapid change of the river channel with no cut off of land and the principles of erosion and accretion may still apply. It is only when land is cut off by such rapid change and remains identifiable that the principles of avulsion come into play. As has been pointed out, there is nothing in this record from which it can be determined that part of `Flowers Island' to which it is claimed Lot 1 accreted, was identifiable land which was cut off by the sudden movement of the river so that the principles of avulsion would apply to it. No surveys were taken and no witness testified to facts which would justify a finding with respect thereto, and any such finding could only rest upon speculation on the court's part. The trial court's findings of fact said: 1. The plaintiff is the owner of record title to Lot 1. 2. Lot 1 was completely eroded by the action of the Missouri river so that in 1916, it was in the bed of the river. 3. In 1916, the river commenced a movement towards the west of Lot 1. 4. As the river retreated to the west and through subsequent action of the waters contiguous to Lot A, the area within the platted boundaries of Lot 1 re-formed as accretion to Lot A. 5. The plaintiff was the owner of Lot A. 6. The plaintiff is the owner of Lot 1.