IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-1813
Filed August 19, 2026
_______________
Larry Lewis, individually and as Trustee of the Claude, Doc & Larry Lewis Irrevocable Trust,
Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Tom Jimenez, Defendant–Appellee.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, The Honorable Amber L. Thompson, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
S.P. DeVolder of The DeVolder Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Norwalk, attorney for appellants.
John A. Morrissey of Court Street Law Offices, Fairfield, and Edwin F.
Kelly, Oskaloosa, attorneys for appellee.
_______________
Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.
2
SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.
Larry Lewis appeals the district court’s judgment and order following a bench trial that dismissed his claims of trespass, negligence, willful property damage, and intentional removal of monuments against his neighbor, Tom Jimenez. Upon our review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Lewis is the trustee and manager of the Claude, Doc, and Larry Lewis Irrevocable Trust (the trust), which owns farmland in Monroe County. Lewis’s neighbor to the east and south is Jimenez, who also operates farmland. Previously, relatives of Lewis, two brothers, owned both properties. Lewis has had control and operated his farm continuously since either 1994 or 1995. Jimenez began renting the farmland to the south and east in 1999 and eventually purchased it in 2001. Both farms are primarily tillable acres used for row cropping.
The farms share and are separated by approximately one and a quarter mile of fenceline. The fenceline was separated in the district court proceedings into three sections for ease of identification: Fence #1 runs north and south for one-half mile from 110th Street to the north, with its southern corner meeting Fence #2; Fence #2 runs east and west for one-quarter mile from the corner meeting Fence #1 then west to the northern corner of Fence #3; and Fence #3 runs north and south for one-half mile from the western corner of Fence #2 and runs south to the end of the parties’ neighboring land.
Jason Rogers has been custom farming the Lewis farm since 2021, with Lewis paying Rogers to plant, spray, fertilize, and harvest the crops that are owned and sold by Lewis. Randy Rozenboom is a cash rent tenant of the
3
Jimenez farm; Rozenboom plants, sprays, fertilizes, and harvests his crop on the Jimenez farmland.
Lewis’s first claim for trespass and negligence involved alleged crop loss in 2021 and 2022 from over spraying or drifting herbicides from the Jimenez farm onto Lewis’s farm. The alleged errant spraying happened in proximity to Fence #1, destroying Lewis’s soybeans and corn. Lewis based this claim on the testimony of Jason Rogers. Rogers testified that the spraying that caused damage must have originated from the Jimenez farm, and he stated he personally observed the loss by seeing dead or dying crops. Rogers also compared crop yields in 2021 and 2022 to other years and found significant deviation, purportedly showing diminished yields. Rogers estimated the losses for the 2021 and 2022 yields totaled $8,500.
The second claim for trespass and negligence arose from Jimenez allegedly altering his land near Fence #1, which increased water flow onto Lewis’s farm. This alteration occurred in 2020 because of terracing, tile work, and the addition of dirt on the Jimenez farm. Lewis claimed that this increased waterflow caused large ditches in his land and erosion. Rogers and Lewis both testified they observed this increase in waterflow. Lewis offered evidence that remediation expenses for the waterflow totaled $25,190.20, work that included bulldozing, dirt fill, and tile work.
Third, Lewis asserted a trespass and negligence claim based on construction and placement of the fenceline between the parties’ farms. Prior to 2015, Fence #1 was historically considered the boundary between the two farms in that section. In 2015, Lewis and Jimenez agreed to remove Fence #1, clean the line, and reconstruct the fence in the same place. The fenceline was rebuilt in 2021. During the period between 2015 and 2021, both parties continued to plant and harvest up to the original fence line. But, as Lewis
4
testified, Jimenez allegedly rebuilt his side of the fence aiming at a gate pole west of the original fence line, encroaching six to eight feet on Lewis’s property. Lewis then hired a surveyor to determine the farm boundaries. Lewis did this without notifying Jimenez. The surveyor believed the property line should have been altered up to six feet on Jimenez’s land near the north end of Fence #1. Lewis asserts the total invoice from the survey was $2,700 and that he lost an acre of land because of the new fence placement, valued at $12,000.
After this survey, the surveyor placed rebar markers in the field that Jimenez had traditionally farmed to indicate where the former legal property boundary was located. Jimenez discovered these markers sticking out of the ground and removed them as they could potentially damage his farm equipment. While removing the rods, Jimenez measured from where the rods were to the boundary fence. He wrote the distances with permanent marker on duct tape that he attached to the boundary fence. Jimenez did this to indicate the distance from the fence to where each marker had been placed. Jimenez found later that someone had removed the setoff tape markers and that new rods had been placed in the field. This time, Jimenez drove the rods into the ground. These actions by Jimenez form the basis of Lewis’s destruction-of-monuments claim.
Lastly, Lewis claims that in rebuilding Fence #1, Jimenez failed to build a “livestock-tight” fence on his section, amounting to negligence. He asserts he sustained $13,500 in damages from the defective portion of the fence because he was unable to graze cattle for three years, and he estimated repair costs to fix Jimenez’s side of the fence to be $11,800.
After a two-day bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Jimenez on all counts. Regarding the fence encroachment, the district court found
5
that credible testimony showed the fence line was in the same location since at least 1999, and that boundary-by-acquiescence may apply. For the crop- damage claim, the court found there was not a preponderance of evidence showing the alleged crop damage was caused by Jimenez. The district court also found that Lewis may have experienced erosion on his land from water run-off, but there was insufficient proof that Jimenez caused it. Concerning the claim that Jimenez failed to build a tight fence, the court found there was no duty required of Jimenez to build such a fence without a written agreement. Lastly, the district court ruled that the surveyor pins that Jimenez removed did not qualify as “monuments” under Iowa Code section 355.1(7) (2024), and Jimenez acted reasonably to protect his equipment. Lewis now appeals.
II. Analysis
We review a district court’s judgments in a bench trial for correction of errors at law. See Walnut Creek Townhome Ass’n v. Depositors Ins. Co., 913 N.W.2d 80, 87 (Iowa 2018). “The district court’s factual findings in a bench trial are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (cleaned up). “[E]vidence [is] substantial if a reasonable person would accept the evidence as adequate to reach the district court’s conclusion.” Smith v. State, 845 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). “In determining whether substantial evidence exists, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s judgment.” Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Bergstrom, 703 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Iowa 2005). The burden of proof in civil cases is measured by preponderance of the evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(f ).
6
A. Trespass Claims
“[A] claim for trespass on land is the wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in property.” Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP, 977 N.W.2d 67, 89 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted). A person who intentionally “enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or third person to do so” commits trespass. Robert’s River Rides, Inc. v. Steamboat Dev. Corp., 520 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Iowa 1994) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by, Barreca v. Nickolas, 683 N.W.2d 111, 123 (Iowa 2004).
We begin by determining if substantial evidence supports the district court’s ruling that Lewis failed to prove Jimenez trespassed on Lewis’s land by rebuilding Fence #1 on an incorrect boundary line. Lewis claims that Jimenez rebuilt the north half of Fence #1 using the wrong guidepost, resulting in the fence encroaching on Lewis’s land by six to eight feet. Lewis alleges this caused him to lose approximately one acre of land to Jimenez. Lewis bases this claim on the survey he commissioned that showed the historical property line did not align with Fence #1 before and after it was rebuilt.
We find the district court correctly determined substantial evidence supports an absence of trespass on this claim. The district court explained:
[T]he surveyor’s findings support Lewis’ contention that the north end of Fence #1 was directed north to the wrong post and is, therefore, encroaching on Lewis’ property. The question, however, is when did this encroachment start?
Jimenez testified that Fence #1 was removed in 2015 at Lewis’
request. The property line remained without a fence for several years and each party farmed along the property line as they previously had as the fence line was still visible . . . . Jimenez testified that the current position of his farm field is where the field has always been for as long as he has farmed the ground since 1999 . . . . Rozenboom recalls farming it through
7
the years after 2015 when there was no fence and could still farm up to the same lines, which were visible. Jimenez claims the current location of the fence to be the boundary by acquiescence.
....
[T]he claim from Jimenez and Rozenboom that the fence line has been in its current location at least since 1999 is supported by the assessor’s aerial photographs showing the field entrances in the field and the fence line running south from the road. The issue is not directly before the Court in this matter, but it is plausible that the current location of the fence is now the boundary line by acquiescence.
It was Lewis’ burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the fence is a trespass on his land but there is no evidence, other than Lewis’ memory, that Jimenez put Fence #1 back in a place it wasn’t in 2015. Based upon the evidence presented to the Court and the credible testimony of Jimenez and Rozenboom, the Court believes it is quite possible that Fence #1 has been running to the wrong corner post for twenty years or more. It is quite likely Jimenez was in possession of the land for which Lewis claims he is now trespassing on. A person cannot be found to have trespassed on land he has known as his own for nearly 25 years.
....
. . . . By this ruling, the Court is not making any ruling on the legal boundary line between the parties. In finding there was no trespass, the Court is only making a finding that there could be a legitimate claim under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence which negates the trespass claim and the intentions of the defendant. The issue of the parties’ boundary line is not before the Court in this action, and the Court makes no definitive finding relative thereto.
The district court found the testimony of Jimenez and his cash rent tenant to be credible, “[a]nd credibility questions are reserved for the factfinder.” State v. Lang, 30 N.W.3d 757, 764 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). Further, we agree with the district court that the historical recognition of the boundary line of Fence #1 implies that Jimenez was unaware of the possibility
8
of trespass, showing a lack of intentionality. Because we defer to the district court’s fact judgments, we find substantial evidence supports the ruling in favor of Jimenez on this issue. Chrysler Fin. Co., 703 N.W.2d at 418.1
We now consider Lewis’s next trespass claim—that Jimenez or his agents over sprayed herbicide onto the Lewis farm, damaging his hay, soybean, and corn crops. Lewis alleges this occurred in 2020, 2021, and 2022 to each respective crop. Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Lewis failed to prove this claim.
Although Lewis and his tenant stated they observed crop damage from overspray in the fields bordering Jimenez’s farm in 2020 and 2021, the district court found the corroborating exhibits offered were unconvincing. The exhibits were maps that showed low crop yields in red during those years. The district court noted “it is not obvious that the red low yield portions on the map are solely along the Lewis Jimenez boundary line.” And Rozenboom testified that the maps appeared to originate from combine data, which can be affected by the combine’s speed, and can be “a little bit deceiving because when the combine speeds up or slows down, it would be a difference on the recording in the mass load sensor.”
We find the district court did not err in determining, “The claim is simply not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” Further, we also find the district court did not err in dismissing Lewis’s willful destruction of crops
1 Lewis also raised an identical claim regarding the east-west Fence #2, alleging Jimenez moved the fence north by six feet in 2015, constituting trespass. We agree with the district court, which held, “There was simply little to no evidence offered to support this claim. The allegation itself is from 2015, more than five years before the petition was filed. It is therefore denied for lack of sufficient proof and beyond the statute of limitations.” See Iowa Code § 614.1(4).
9
claim based on over spraying in violation of Iowa Code section 717A.3 for the same reasoning.
Lewis’s final trespass claim alleged that Jimenez or his agents terraced his land adjoining the east portion of Lewis’s farm in 2022, causing increased waterflow and flooding to his farm. The district court’s judgment and order extensively detailed the facts relevant to this claim. Importantly, Jimenez’s farm sits at a higher elevation than Lewis’s farm. The evidence shows that Jimenez, since he purchased the farm in 2001, made many modifications to his land to mitigate flooding and erosion. But Lewis still experienced flooding and erosion that he also attempted to mitigate, and he blamed Jimenez. Absent testimony from the parties and their agents concerning the mitigation efforts, the only evidence allegedly showing water damage is a few photos of Lewis’s land showing a small ditch that could have been formed by erosion. The evidence concerning this issue was murky at best, and the district court determined:
The Court did not hear from a single neutral party regarding whether the terrace and basin work done on the Jimenez property was done properly or was the cause of the increased erosion problems on the Lewis farm. The Court is left with the opinion of Lewis and his tenant versus the opinion of Jimenez and his tenant. Other than Exhibits . . . which show a washout area in a grassy part of Lewis’ farm, there is no additional evidence of the erosion provided to the Court and certainly no evidence of the cause of the erosion. It is Lewis’ burden to prove that Jimenez or his agents caused excess water runoff constituting a trespass on Lewis’ farm. The Court believes Lewis experienced increased issues with soil erosion on his farm as evidenced by the work he had completed but is not convinced that there is enough evidence to prove Jimenez or his agents were the cause of it. Lewis has not met his burden to prove trespass by excess water runoff.
Because substantial evidence supports the district court’s findings that Lewis failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Jimenez
10
directly caused the alleged waterflow damage, we find the district court did not err in dismissing this claim. See Walnut Creek Townhome Ass’n, 913 N.W.2d at 87; Lang, 30 N.W.3d at 764.
B. Negligence Claims
Lewis also claims that Jimenez acted negligently with actual or legal malice by the same facts as above regarding crop damage, water-caused property damage, the rebuilt fence line, and, further, in Jimenez failing to maintain a livestock-tight fence. Lewis asserts these actions support an award for punitive damages.
“The essential elements of a tort claim for negligence generally include: (1) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury; (2) a failure to perform that duty; (3) a reasonably close causal connection, i.e., legal or proximate cause; and (4) damages.” Garcia v. Iowa Interstate R.R., No. 11-1721, 2013 WL 988635, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013) (quoting Bockelman v. State, 366 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Iowa 1985)). One “acts negligently if the person does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances.” Hill v. Damm, 804 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted). “Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person’s conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that person’s conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm.” Id. (citation omitted).
To establish proximate cause, “a plaintiff must show both that the defendant’s conduct in fact caused the plaintiff’s damage, and that the policy of the law requires the defendant to be legally responsible for them.” Warner v. Moore, No. 05-0403, 2006 WL 334259, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2006)
11
(cleaned up). The foreseeability of the damage by the defendant “is an important element in the establishment of causation.” Id. (citation omitted).
If a plaintiff meets their burden of showing damages, punitive damages may be appropriate if, “Whether, by a preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, the conduct of the defendant . . . constituted willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another.” Iowa Code § 668A.1(1)(a). To award punitive damages, the plaintiff must show actual or legal malice on the part of the defendant. Clark-Peterson Co. v. Indep. Ins. Assocs., Ltd. 514 N.W.2d 912, 916 (Iowa 1994). “A showing of wrongful conduct committed or continued with willful or reckless disregard for another’s rights is sometimes sufficient to show legal malice.” Id.
We incorporate our analysis above for the crop-damage, fencelinereplacement , and water-runoff claims. Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Lewis failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Jimenez or his agents were the cause of the alleged damages. So, Lewis has failed to show proximate cause on these claims, and accordingly the district court did not err in finding Jimenez was not negligent. It follows that an award of punitive damages is not appropriate. See Shepherd Components, Inc. v. Brice Petrides-Donohue & Assocs., Inc., 473 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Iowa 1991) (stating punitive damage awards, in requiring legal or actual malice, should be based on “wrongful conduct . . . with a willful or reckless disregard for another’s rights” (emphasis added)).
Lewis’s remaining negligence claim is based on Jimenez failing to maintain a livestock-tight fence on his half such that Lewis could not safely graze cattle on his property. Lewis’s complaints concerning Jimenez’s half of the fence include the barbed wire being rusty, too many splices in the wire, and the distances between the fence posts. Lewis asserts that he requested
12
Jimenez build a fence of the same quality as Lewis’s and Jimenez failed to do so. The district court found that the evidence showed Jimenez’s fence was of lower quality and less tight than Lewis’s fence, “but finds no law requiring Jimenez to match the quality of fence Lewis installed.”
Under Iowa law, neighboring properties can “be compelled to erect and maintain partition fences, or contribute thereto, and keep the same in good repair throughout the year” after a written request by either property owner. Iowa Code § 359A.1A. “In case adjoining owners or occupants of land shall use the same for pasturing sheep or swine, each shall keep that one’s share of the partition fence in such condition as shall restrain such sheep or swine.” Id. § 359A.21. When a controversy accrues concerning a partition fence, fence viewers who serve as trustees of the local township “shall have authority to hear and decide all questions related to matters that are part of the controversy.” Id. § 359A.2A.
Here, as the district court pointed out, there was no evidence of a written request or written agreement between the parties to maintain the partition fence. Further, the evidence shows that at no time while owning the farm Lewis or his tenant grazed cattle or any other livestock next to Jimenez’s land. See id. § 359A.21. Lastly, Lewis never initiated proceedings with the local fence viewers, who have authority to hear and decide issue of fencing controversy per section 359A.2A.
“In Iowa there is no common law duty for landowners to fence their property,” and landowners are only required to erect and maintain a partition fence through a written agreement under section 359A.12 or written request under section 359A.1A. Longfellow v. Sayler, 737 N.W.2d 148, 153 (Iowa 2007). We agree with the district court that because there was no written request or agreement between the parties regarding a partition fence,
13
“Jimenez had no obligation to build or keep a tight fence.” Further, because Lewis has not pastured livestock on the land adjoining Jimenez, Jimenez has no obligation to maintain a tight fence. See Iowa Code § 359A.21. We find the district court did not err in finding Jimenez was not negligent by failing to maintain a tight fence.
C. Intentional Removal of Monuments
Lewis’s last claim is that Jimenez or his agents intentionally removed “monuments”—the survey markers—in 2022 and 2023 with legal malice, and Lewis should be awarded punitive damages.
We agree with the district court that the markers, metal rods placed in the ground on the purported official boundary line between the properties, are not “monuments.” The statutory definition of “ʻ[m]onument’ means a physical structure which marks the location of a corner or other survey point.” Id. § 355.1(7). “ʻCorner’ means a point at which two or more lines meet.” Id. § 355.1(1).
The surveyor testified during trial that he located monuments “in the field that have been set prior to my surveying by previous surveyors, and [the plat survey] would show you the monuments I set during the survey.” But during cross-examination, the surveyor clarified that the markers he placed indicating the property line “would not have been technically survey monuments.” Further, the surveyor referred to a “point of beginning” as “the midpoint between two known survey monuments.” This testimony shows a distinction between his placed markers and the preexisting corner monuments. There is no evidence showing that a corner monument was removed by Lewis, only the rebar markers that he felt could cause harm to his farming equipment.
14
Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Jimenez did not intentionally, and with malice, remove any monuments.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Lewis’s claims.
AFFIRMED.