Home/Supreme Court of Iowa/Goss v. Johnson

Goss v. Johnson

243 N.W.2d 590, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 961
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 30, 1976
Docket2-57252
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 N.W.2d 590 (Goss v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goss v. Johnson, 243 N.W.2d 590, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 961 (iowa 1976).

Opinion

UHLENHOPP, Justice.

This case involves the right of defendants, representatives of an unincorporated association of some of the homeowners in a subdivision of rural land, to barricade certain streets in the subdivision.

Pinehurst Subdivision lies in Pottawatta-mie County just east of Council Bluffs, Iowa. Eugene M. Diller purchased the 50-acre tract comprising the subdivision in 1948. He subdivided part of the tract and in the early 1950’s began to sell lots. In March 1956 he and his wife conveyed the north 20 acres of the tract to his father and mother, Lawrence and Agnes Diller. Eugene Diller, and later his parents, altogether made three subdivisions of the 50 acres, called Pinehurst Subdivision, Pinehurst Second Subdivision, and Pinehurst Third Subdivision. As the parties do, we will refer to the 50 acres as a whole as Pine-hurst Subdivision.

As the Dillers sold lots in the subdivision they retained title to strips of land set aside as streets. Two of the subdivision streets provide entrances from a county road on the west and two provide entrances from Highway 92 on the south. Eugene Diller said he wanted to be able to develop the tract without worrying about trespassing on someone else’s streets. At trial in 1973, after the subdivision had been developed, Diller testified that he had never deeded to anyone the land comprising the streets. He said, however, that in the early 1960⅛ he executed and recorded a quit claim deed by which he abandoned his claim to the streets.

From the beginning of the development, the homeowners in Pinehurst Subdivision cooperated in maintaining the streets. Although at least some of the deeds given by the Dillers contained covenants that the grantees would “contribute ratably with adjoining property owners ... to the expense of repairing and maintaining [the streets],” the owners always viewed such cooperation and contribution as voluntary. In 1957, the owners formed Pinehurst Improvement Association (PIA), with the object of improving and maintaining the streets of the subdivision. The association organized “work days” and collected funds for such operations as gravelling and paving the streets, erecting signs, and removing snow. The association elected officers and kept books of account.

Sometime in the late 1960’s or early 1970’s, residents in the eastern part of the *592 subdivision, primarily those living on a street called Pinecrest Drive, formed a separate association, Pinecrest Limited. This association has “jurisdiction” in the eastern part of the subdivision and maintains the streets there. The expenses of maintaining the four entrances to the subdivision and of removal of snow from the streets were divided between the two associations in proportion to their membership: 70% paid by PIA and 30% by Pinecrest Limited.

Residents of the subdivision have sought several times to get Pottawattamie County to assume maintenance of the streets. The county has refused to do so, however, apparently because the streets do not meet minimum width requirements. To time of trial, therefore, street maintenance has been carried out by the two associations.

Use of the streets by “outsiders” has troubled the residents of the subdivision for some time. As shown by the accompanying sketch, the streets of the subdivision offer a shortcut from the county road on the west to Highway 92 on the south. Subdivision residents claim that such use of the streets, particularly by trucks and other heavy vehicles, damages the streets and makes maintenance more difficult and expensive.

*593 4BQDOIBycXybg5FrhxIOfRDkSsqHVayYzDzSiCXDGJ9nWi1O6ufiLPT77L1sPubjSmldaL7fbYPmRjQuWxWNynNl3tsH

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Duke Energy of Indiana, LLC v. City of Franklin, Indiana
69 N.E.3d 471 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016)
Stephen Gray And Shelly Gray, Husband And Wife Vs. James R. Osborn, Iii Vs. Stephen Gray And Shelly Gray
Supreme Court of Iowa, 2007
Gray v. Osborn
739 N.W.2d 855 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2007)
Kilts v. American Legion Okoboji Lakes Post 654
581 N.W.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1998)
Litzelswope v. Mitchell
451 N.E.2d 366 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1983)
Kahl v. Clear Lake Methodist Camp Ass'n
265 N.W.2d 622 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 N.W.2d 590, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goss-v-johnson-iowa-1976.