Court Opinion

ID: 9684235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:51:42.676405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.190930
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The statutory directions for compensation commissions were not followed in this condemnation action. Bonnie Lewis was appointed a condemnation commissioner in the real estate category. She was not either in the class of licensed salespersons or broker. She had a license in 1988. The county sought to condemn the land in question in 1993, some five years from the date of her last license. Lewis was not current enough with real estate law to know her license had lapsed at the time of her appointment. The majority accepts her ignorance of the fact her license had lapsed as a reason to find she was an officer de facto. I find it one of several reasons why she did not meet the statutory qualifications of a commissioner.
The majority finds Lewis’s background as a licensed broker presented her with an acute knowledge of real estate in the area. A five-year lapse in sales experience can result in ignorance of current market values. This is particularly unfair to one whose land is sought to be condemned because generally land values increase with inflation and the passage of time. Plaintiff was prejudiced by Lewis’s holding as being currently licensed and possessed of the qualifications of one currently licensed to sell real estate.
In Bourjaily v. Johnson County, 167 N.W.2d 630, 633-34 (Iowa 1969), the court said:
“We are firmly committed to the rule that statutes delegating the powers of eminent domain are strictly construed and restricted to their expression and intention. Iowa State Highway Comm’n v. Hipp, 259 Iowa 1082, 1088, 147 N.W.2d 195, 198; Aplin v. Clinton County, 256 Iowa 1059, 1061, 129 N.W.2d 726, 727, and citations.
In 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain, section 3.213(3), pages 359-62, the author states: ‘Strict construction as to exercise of the power. In acting pursuant to a conceded power of eminent domain, the grantee’s procedure is strictly construed in the light of the authorizing statute. As private property can be taken for public uses against the consent of the owner only in such cases and by such proceedings as may be specially provided by law, and as *844these proceedings are not according to the common law and are in derogation of private right, and as they wholly depend on statutory regulation, the use of this extraordinary power must comply with all provisions of the statute. This does not necessarily mean that literal observance of the statutory regulations is required. Substantial conformity to the requirements of the statute is sufficient.
The legislature has the undoubted power to determine how the grantee shall exercise the delegated power. In order to exercise such power properly the grantee must conform to such provisions, and for the purpose of determining whether or not such conformity exists its action is subject to judicial review.’
In 27 Am. Jur.2d, Eminent Domain, section 375, pages 240-41, we find this: ‘Thus, where the right of eminent domain is invoked, the provisions of the law granting the right must be complied with. In some instances the statute or franchise authorizing the construction of the work prescribes a special procedure to facilitate acquiring property by condemnation; where such is not the case, condemnors are bound, of course, to proceed according to the provisions of the general laws. In any ease, the extent to which the power of eminent domain may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained. Where, therefore, the state, a municipality, or other agent in charge of a public use, seeks to acquire, against the consent of the owner, private property for public use, the provisions of the authorizing law must be strictly complied with, and this must appear on the face of the proceedings for taking the land. In other words, the statutory procedure must be followed.’ For like statements, see 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain, § 22.”
Bourjaily, 167 N.W.2d at 630-34.
While recognizing the supreme court’s call for strict compliance with the statutory requirements in eminent domain proceedings, the majority has not followed its instruction. The extraordinary nature of this proceeding-demands strict compliance. There was not strict compliance here. I would grant plaintiffs claim for relief.