Barry C. Simpson and Stacy Simpson, Husband and Wife, David Gerber and Kathy Gerber, Husband and Wife, Jeremy Walker and Kayla Walker, Husband and Wife, Jeff Weber and Tracy Weber, Husband and Wife, Leroy F. Weber and Audrey H. Weber, Husband and Wife, Ken Witham and Cindy L. Witham, Husband and Wife, Terry W. Warmbier and Carol Warmbier, Husband and Wife, Howard P. Swanson and H. Aileen Swanson, Husband and Wife, Eugene K. Lemkee and Sharon Lemkee, Husband and Wife, Duane Heinen and Sharon K. Heinen, Husband and Wife, Earl Loss and Juanita Loss, Husband and Wife, Thomas M. Altman and Marlene Altman, Husband and Wife, J.W. Gardner and Karen Gardner, Husband and Wife, Ronald Frankl and Pamela Frankl, Husband and Wife, Bob Casey and Trish Casey, Husband and Wife, Richard N. Kohlhaas and Richard G. Thompson v. Luke Kollasch, Charlie Kollasch, Kollasch Land and Livestock, Inc., General Development, L.L.C., a/k/a General Development Corp., Donald R. Tietz, John Mertz, Nicholas Berte, Dean Berte, Kevin Berte and Craig Berte

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of neighbors’ anticipatory nuisance claim concerning a proposed confined animal feeding operation in Kossuth County. The court held that the neighbors had not shown by the required high standard that a nuisance would necessarily result from the operation, and it concluded that the expired permit for a second proposed facility presented a speculative and moot issue. The court also held that evidence of compliance with Iowa Department of Natural Resources standards was relevant, although regulatory compliance is not a defense to a nuisance claim.

Holdings

1. The issue concerning Sow 2 was moot and the district court properly limited its ruling to Sow 1 because the permit had expired and General Development had no current plans to construct the facility.
2. Evidence that the proposed facility complied with Department of Natural Resources standards and regulations was relevant and properly considered, although regulatory compliance is not itself a defense to a nuisance claim.
3. The neighbors failed to prove that Sow 1 would necessarily result in an actionable nuisance, so an anticipatory-nuisance injunction was unwarranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by considering only the proposed Sow 1 facility and declining to rule on Sow 2.
2. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence that the proposed facility would comply with Department of Natural Resources standards and regulations.
3. Whether the neighbors proved that operation of Sow 1 would necessarily result in an actionable nuisance warranting an anticipatory injunction.

Disposition

affirmed