KEO RENTAL, L.L.C. vs. VAN BUREN COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 11 1544 Filed May 3, 2013 KEO RENTAL, L.L.C., Appellee, vs. VAN BUREN COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Interlocutory review from the Iowa District Court for Van Buren County, Joel Yates, Judge. Property owner seeks further review from court of appeals decision reversing the district court s ruling that it had substantially complied with the statutory requirements for a property-assessment protest. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; AND CASE REMANDED. Jamie L. Cox and Frank W. Pechacek, Jr. of Willson & Pechacek, P.L.C., Council Bluffs, for appellant. Steven Gardner of Denefe, Gardner & Zingg, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellee. 2 PER CURIAM. This is the companion interlocutory review with facts that mirror MC Holdings, L.L.C. v. Davis County Board of Review, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2013), decided today. Keo Rental argues the court of appeals erred in reversing the decision of the district court, which held that Keo Rental substantially complied with the requirements for a property-assessment protest set forth in Iowa Code section 441.37 (2009). Based on the reasoning in MC Holdings, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district court s order that denied summary judgment to the Van Buren County Board of Review. We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED. All justices concur except Waterman, Mansfield, and Zager, JJ., who dissent. This decision shall not be published. 3 #11 1544, Keo Rental, L.L.C. v. Van Buren Cnty. Bd. of Review WATERMAN, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in No. 11 1501, MC Holdings, L.L.C. v. Davis County Board of Review, filed today. Mansfield and Zager, JJ., join this dissent.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.