City of Burlington v. Schoof
City of Burlington, Iowa, Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
John Antone Schoof, Jr., and Michelle Therese Schoof, Respondents-Appellees,
and
State of Iowa, Des Moines County Treasurer, and Lederman Bonding Company, Respondents.
Attorney for Appellant
Steven C. Leidinger
Attorney for Appellees
John Schoof Jr., self-represented
Michelle Schoof, self-represented
Attorney for Respondent State of Iowa
Hristo Chaprazov, Assistant Attorney General
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Wyatt Peterson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)
The City of Burlington appeals the district court’s denial of its petition to take title of the property of John and Michelle Schoof. The City contends (1) the district court erred in refusing to consider the City’s proposed exhibits that were not offered or admitted into evidence; (2) the district court erred in finding that the Schoofs could not be trespassers on their own property; and (3) the district court’s ruling undermines the “valuable tool” in Iowa Code section 657A.10B(4) (2023) meant to discourage owners from abandoning properties in a deteriorated and dangerous condition. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in declining to consider proposed exhibits the City did not offer into evidence, and the Schoofs did not waive any objection to their admission. And to prove trespass and abandonment, the City cites an inspection report it never offered into evidence and that is not available to us on appeal. The City did not carry its burden, so we affirm.
