Hillview Associates v. Bloomquist
440 N.W.2d 867 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a landlord is prohibited from evicting a tenant in retaliation for protected activities such as organizing a tenants' union, this defense does not protect a tenant who engages in egregious misconduct. A landlord may overcome the statutory presumption of retaliation by producing evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination, such as a tenant's physical assault on a manager.
Facts:
- In January 1987, tenants of the Gracious Estates Mobile Home Park, owned by Hillview Associates, formed a tenants' association to address concerns about park conditions and rent increases.
- The association voiced its complaints to park management and contacted the Iowa Attorney General's office.
- The relationship between the association and management, represented by regional manager Kathy Nitz, deteriorated.
- On April 15, 1987, a meeting between tenant representatives and Nitz devolved into a shouting match.
- During the altercation, tenant Kimber Davenport verbally abused Nitz and then struck her in the face.
- Other members of the tenants' association—the Bloomquists, Swartzes, and Rays—were present and participated in the heated argument but not in the physical assault.
- On April 22, 1987, Hillview served thirty-day notices of termination to the Davenports, Bloomquists, Swartzes, and Rays, all of whom had a member present at the April 15 meeting.
Procedural Posture:
- Hillview Associates served sixty-day notices of termination on tenants Bloomquist, Davenport, Swartz, and Ray.
- After the tenants remained in possession, Hillview served three-day notices to quit.
- Hillview Associates filed a forcible entry and detainer action in Iowa district court (trial court) to evict the tenants.
- The tenants asserted the affirmative defenses of retaliatory eviction and waiver.
- The district court rejected the tenants' defenses and entered an order for the tenants' removal.
- The tenants (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction protect tenants who engage in misconduct, such as physical assault, during activities related to their tenants' association?
Opinions:
Majority - Andreasen, J.
No. The affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction does not protect a tenant who engages in egregious misconduct such as physical assault, even if that misconduct occurs during protected tenant organizing activities. The court held that while Iowa law creates a presumption of retaliation if a landlord acts against a tenant within six months of a protected activity, the landlord can rebut this presumption by producing evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the eviction. Here, Kimber Davenport's physical assault on the manager, Kathy Nitz, was a legitimate reason for his eviction that was separate from his protected union activities. Davenport's conduct 'crossed beyond the line of legitimate behavior,' and therefore he failed to prove his eviction was retaliatory. In contrast, the other tenants (Bloomquist, Swartz, and Ray) who argued but were not violent remained protected, as the landlord's attempt to evict them was more convincingly attributed to retaliation for their association membership rather than any specific misconduct.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application and limits of the retaliatory eviction defense in Iowa. It establishes a burden-shifting framework where a statutory presumption of retaliation can be rebutted by the landlord's evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory motive. The decision is significant for drawing a clear line between protected tenant advocacy, which may include heated arguments, and unprotected misconduct, such as physical violence. This precedent allows courts to balance the statutory rights of tenants to organize and complain with a landlord's right to maintain a safe environment and remove tenants for legitimate cause, preventing the retaliatory eviction defense from becoming a shield for any and all tenant behavior.
