Amendment to Iowa Code 614.24

Started by BanksS • 2 replies • 3385 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

BanksS
Posts: 403

Posted:

Hi All,

http://amesiowalaw.wordpress.com/tag/homeowners-association/

To those interested, the Iowa legislature amended Iowa Code 614.24. It's an amendment to the Iowa 21-year time limit to preserve certain covenants and restrictions.

My interpretation is that certain common elements are not now bound by the 21-year time limit to preserve and the law attempts to list those elements such as roads, wells, etc. I see this as a positive law for Iowa HOA's owning those particular elements and their need to assess members for the operation and maintenance of those elements.

The law took affect July 1, 2014.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Banks,

I am a big fan of Iowa's 21-year time limit on covenants. I especially liked the part that required recording covenant renewals in a book kept specifically for that purpose so that if a renewal is not recorded there it can be definitively said that it has not been renewed. I wish more states would do that.

It had not occurred to me previously that tossing out the restrictions on property use also meant tossing out other agreements for the mutual benefit of all, such as maintaining the roads. I am not sure that the Iowa legislature's attempt at trying to separate those parts that get tossed from those that get retained is the correct way to go. If the old CC&R's containing the road agreements expired, there is nothing to prevent the owners effected from entering into a new agreement for just the roads. My research has found that common law already holds that those who use a road have an enforceable obligation to pay for its maintenance.

BanksS
Posts: 403

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LarryB13 on 07/16/2014 9:29 PM
Banks,

I am a big fan of Iowa's 21-year time limit on covenants. I especially liked the part that required recording covenant renewals in a book kept specifically for that purpose so that if a renewal is not recorded there it can be definitively said that it has not been renewed. I wish more states would do that.

It had not occurred to me previously that tossing out the restrictions on property use also meant tossing out other agreements for the mutual benefit of all, such as maintaining the roads. I am not sure that the Iowa legislature's attempt at trying to separate those parts that get tossed from those that get retained is the correct way to go. If the old CC&R's containing the road agreements expired, there is nothing to prevent the owners effected from entering into a new agreement for just the roads. My research has found that common law already holds that those who use a road have an enforceable obligation to pay for its maintenance.

Good points Larry. My attorney agrees with you on your common law statement. The Chipman vs Kearney case contradicts that common law as the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that Kearney wasn't obligated to pay for the road maintenance. But my attorney always stated that the obligation to pay means that the fees have to be reasonable. Otherwise what would keep the Association from charging a million dollars. If challenged, one would have to prove what the actual costs of the maintenance are and divided proportionately among those benefiting from the element. For me, it was never about not paying, it was about the amount. There is also a common law called unjust enrichment.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here