Although renters may not want landlords entering their homes without good reason, landlords are allowed by law to reasonably enter rental properties for such things as making repairs and showing apartments to prospective renters. The question is when do reasonable entries become unreasonable?

For Alex Butter and Sydney Stodola, that line was crossed after their landlord entered their Iowa City apartment for showings 48 times. When they complained that the showings were excessive and disruptive, the property manager offered in an email to limit showings to specified days and time spans. But Butter and Stodola assert the landlord entered for 12 showings outside those specified times without advance notice or consent, so they sued the landlord and the property manager.

The Johnson County District Court upheld a magistrate judge’s conclusion that the manager trespassed on Butter and Stodola, but only on four occasions when it failed to give 24-hours’ notice. Disputing the magistrate’s and district court’s conclusions and holdings on damages and attorney fees, Butter and Stodola appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

The Court will hear arguments in the case on Nov. 4 in Jefferson, at the Green County High School auditorium, 1901 North Grimmel Road. The oral argument will begin at 7 p.m., and is open to the public. This session is one of the Iowa Supreme Court’s series of oral arguments heard in communities around the state to more broadly expose the public to the appellate process. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in this case.]

Under the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Iowa Code Chapter 562A), a tenant “shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors.”

Butter and Stodola argue on appeal that the apartment manager’s email specifying when showings would occur was, in effect, the landlord asking for consent to enter at those times and an acknowledgement that the tenants had exercised their right to object to entry at other times. Thus, they assert, the landlord did not have actual or implied consent to enter at times other than those specified in the email and the additional 12 entries were trespasses because they were made without consent.

In response, KMB Property Management argues that its email specifying entry times was not a contract, which requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Furthermore, it states in a brief filed with the Iowa Supreme Court, Stodola gave “apparent consent” when KMB subsequently provided 24-hours’ notice of intent to show the property at times outside the timeframe stated in its email. KMB states it had reason to believe consent was given for those entries because Stodola voluntarily let KMB in on those occasions. “There is also no evidence that KMB ever entered the property after Alex or Sydney refused to allow entry when KMB came to the door,” KBM argues in its brief.

The post Iowa Supreme Court to hear oral argument in Jefferson Nov. 4 on landlord-tenant dispute appeared first on Nyemaster Goode On Brief.