The Law

This case is a great example of staying on time with deadlines and following up on actions you filed. On January 29th, 2023 the Iowa DOT informed Brendeland of the building of the highway 210. This notice includes taking all rights of direct access, which Brendeland wanted access to. The landowners were also verbally told that they would not be granted direct access to the highway on February 21st of that same year. Finally, on March 20th, the landowners filed a challenge of the denial to the district court, after receiving a written reply to their email sent to the DOT on March 8th, reaffirming the denial. The district court dismissed the challenge as untimely as there is a 30‑day deadline to bring a challenge to the court.

The landowners filed an appeal to the Supreme Court 22 days later on August 23rd - well within the 30‑day deadline to appeal. They also filed to the DOT as required, but failed to file to the district court. The landowner’s counsel followed up with the Supreme Court on September 18th, to find out why they had not received a notice of briefing deadlines. The clerk of the Supreme Court said that one would be forthcoming in the following days. Rather than receiving a notice of briefing of deadlines, on September 27th, the attorney’s office was issued a single justice order. The justice order stated that the counsel failed to file the appeal to the district court. The landowners then quickly filed to the district court the same day and sent a note to the Supreme Court stating that they had taken all other steps in a timely fashion that were required to appeal. It turns out that the attorney's administrative assistant failed to send the document using the electronic document management system. The Supreme Court deemed this adequate and timely enough to review the district court’s decision about the challenge of the denial of access to the highway.

The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal of the landowner’s challenge due to being untimely. It deemed the district court’s ruling as proper and affirmed the decision. However, there was a dissension in the decision about the delay of the appeal.

Three justices dissented from the decision to review the appeal at all, despite the landowner’s failing to file within the 30‑day deadline. The justice states that the attorney’s office not filing using the electronic system is equivalent to them failing to put the appeal paperwork in the mail. The Supreme Court of Iowa has never reviewed cases where the paperwork was not mailed in time, and the justice believes that this case should be treated as such.

(Brendeland v. Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa Supreme Court, Docket: 23-1356))

Decision: November 2024
Published: November 2024

Feature Articles

If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices.

Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community.

Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact PVS@PlainVanillaShell.com