Hillview Associates v. Bloomquist

Iowa Supreme Court · Property

Propertymobile home park tenanciesretaliatory evictionretaliatory evictionmobile home parktenant associationburden of productionburden of proof

Facts

Tenants at Gracious Estates Mobile Home Park formed a tenant association in early 1987 and made complaints about the park's health, safety, and living conditions to management and others. At an April 15, 1987 meeting with regional manager Kathy Nitz, the discussion became a shouting match and ended with tenant Kimber Davenport striking Nitz after she repeatedly ordered the tenants to leave. Shortly afterward, Hillview served termination notices on the Bloomquists, Davenports, Swartzes, and Rays, all of whom had members present at the meeting, and a former secretary testified management intended to evict some active association members first so it would not appear retaliatory. In the ensuing possession action, the tenants asserted retaliatory eviction and waiver.

Issue

When mobile home park tenants present evidence of protected complaints or tenant-association activity within six months of lease termination, how does the statutory presumption of retaliation operate, and did these tenants prove retaliatory eviction or waiver? Also, may the landlord avoid retaliatory intent by arguing that its general partner lacked specific retaliatory intent when local managers made the decision?

Rule

Under Iowa Code section 562B.32, evidence of a protected complaint or tenant-association activity within six months before the alleged retaliatory act creates a presumption of retaliation. That presumption shifts to the landlord a burden of producing evidence of legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination, but the ultimate burden of proof on the affirmative defense remains with the tenant. If the landlord produces such evidence, the fact-finder decides from all the evidence whether retaliatory termination has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence; conduct of the landlord's agents is attributable to the landlord principal. In assessing whether the landlord's primary motivation was not retaliatory, relevant factors include reasonable business judgment, good-faith plans for the property, lack of financial ability to repair, lack of knowledge of protected activity, delay in acting, and absence of discrimination.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cedar Rapids, tenants at Prairie Lantern Mobile Home Park formed an association and, in good faith, complained to park management and a city housing office about exposed wiring and broken streetlights. Four months later, the landlord served Mia Torres with a 60-day termination notice. At trial, the landlord offered no evidence explaining the termination.

If Mia raises retaliatory eviction as a defense to the landlord’s possession action, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. Protected complaints or tenant-organization activity within six months before the alleged retaliatory act create a statutory presumption of retaliation. That presumption shifts to the landlord a burden of producing evidence of a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason. If the landlord produces no such evidence, the presumption compels a finding of retaliatory termination. The tenant retains the ultimate burden of proof only if the landlord comes forward with rebutting evidence. (Derived from Hillview Associates v. Bloomquist (n.d.).)