Opinion ID: 1579001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicable Law and Scope of Review.

Text: To guide us in resolving the procedural nightmare this record presents, we must review pertinent statutory and case law in the area of city zoning. Iowa Code section 414.15 permits any person aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment under Iowa Code chapter 414 (city zoning) to present to a court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of illegality. Iowa Code § 414.15. Once the petition is presented, the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment to review such decision of the board of adjustment and shall prescribe therein the time within which a return thereto must be made.... Iowa Code § 414.16. The Board must then return certified or sworn copies of the original papers upon which the Board acted and the return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be permitted and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified. Iowa Code § 414.17. Iowa Code section 414.18 provides how the certiorari action is to be tried: If upon the hearing which shall be tried de novo it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review. Iowa Code § 414.18 (emphasis added). Our case law has established the following standard of review for the district court under section 414.18: [I]n a certiorari proceeding in a zoning case the district court finds the facts anew on the record made in the certiorari proceeding. That record will include the return to the writ and any additional evidence which may have been offered by the parties. However, the district court is not free to decide the case anew. Illegality of the challenged board action is established by reason of the court's findings of fact if they do not provide substantial support for the board decision. If the district court's findings of fact leave the reasonableness of the board's decision open to a fair difference of opinion, the court may not substitute its decision for that of the board. Lauridsen v. City of Okoboji Bd. of Adjustment, 554 N.W.2d 541, 543 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Weldon v. Zoning Bd., 250 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Iowa 1977) (The term `de novo' as used in [section 414.18] does not bear its equitable connotation. It authorizes the taking of additional testimony, but only for the submission and consideration of those questions of illegality raised by the statutory petition for writ of certiorari. (Citation omitted.)); Anderson v. Jester, 206 Iowa 452, 463, 221 N.W. 354, 359 (1928) (If one of the grounds of alleged illegality is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory action on the part of the board, and on the facts the reasonableness of the board's action is open to fair difference of opinion, there is, as to that, no illegality. The court is not, in such case, authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the local board.) In Anderson, this court determined what effect the statutes have on the district court's mode and scope of review when one raises an issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support the board's decision: The statute [Iowa Code section 414.18] does not require the board of adjustment to return findings of fact, nor does it, expressly or by implication, limit review to questions of illegality or jurisdiction or other questions appearing upon the face of the record anterior to the filing of petition in certiorari. On the contrary, it expressly declares that the hearing (cause) shall be tried de novo. If all the material facts appear in the record, or are not disputed, or only questions arising upon the record are presented, the taking of evidence is not necessary. Questions likely to arise in such cases are of such great importance that the Legislature appears to have had in mind that the parties should, on the question of the legality of the board's action, be entitled to a full and complete hearing before a proper court of record and according to accepted judicial method of ascertaining facts. The parties are not on certiorari bound by the finding or opinion of the local board on the facts, or by the evidence offered there, or by knowledge outside of the evidence on which the board may have acted, but, ordinarily at least, are entitled to take testimony when a determinative issue of fact is raised. Id. at 461-62, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). On the question of what use the district court may make of the factual record in the certiorari proceeding, the court in Anderson was very specific: It is for illegality, therefore, and only on a petition setting forth illegality, that the writ may be allowed.... The trial de novo permitted the determination of whether testimony is necessary, and the admission of such testimony, or the reference permitted by section [414.18], should be confined to the questions of illegality raised by the petition for the writ. Arbitrary and unreasonable action or proceedings, not authorized by, or contrary to, the terms or spirit and purpose of the statute creating and defining the powers of the board, or contrary to, or unsupported by, facts on which power to act depends, or within which the power must be exercised, are illegal. If one of the grounds of alleged illegality is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory action on the part of the board, and on the facts the reasonableness of the board's action is open to fair difference of opinion, there is, as to that, no illegality. The court is not, in such case, authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the local board. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1412 governs our review from the district court's judgment. That rule provides that [a]ppeal to the supreme court lies from a judgment of the district court in the certiorari proceeding, and will be governed by the rules applicable to appeals in ordinary actions. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1412. Our review is therefore the same as from judgment founded on a special verdict by a jury, that is, on assigned errors only. Lauridsen, 554 N.W.2d at 543. We are bound by the district court's findings if supported by substantial evidence. Chrischilles v. Arnolds Park Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 505 N.W.2d 491, 493 (Iowa 1993). However, we are not bound by erroneous legal rulings that materially affect the court's decision. Id.