The Iowa Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling against two homeowners, Bryan Kratzer and Becki Moore, for violating property covenants related to their home in The Ridge at Echo Valley development. The court's decision, filed on June 10, 2026, affects homeowners in the area and emphasizes the importance of adhering to community rules designed to maintain property values and neighborhood aesthetics.
The case, identified by docket number 25-0497, stems from a dispute between the homeowners and United Properties Investment Company, L.C. (UPI), the developer of the residential area. The court found that Kratzer and Moore constructed an outbuilding without the required approval from the architectural review committee (ARC) and displayed political signage that violated the community's covenants.
In the ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, which included a daily fine of $100 for ongoing violations and ordered the homeowners to pay UPI's attorney fees. The court also remanded the case to address the trial attorney fees awarded to UPI, indicating that further review of those fees was necessary.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Kratzer and Moore purchased their home in April 2020 from Maxwell Midwest Properties, LLC, which still holds the legal title to the property. The Ridge at Echo Valley development is governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements, which aims to maintain the quality and value of the properties within the community. These covenants require homeowners to seek approval from the ARC for any improvements made to their properties.
The covenants include specific restrictions, such as prohibiting temporary structures without a permanent foundation, requiring approval for any improvements, and adhering to setback limits. The homeowners are also prohibited from displaying signs or advertisements without permission from the ARC. The court noted that the development's plat map specifies a fifty-foot building setback requirement for properties adjacent to the golf course, which is integral to the community's layout.
In July 2021, Kratzer displayed political signs on his property, which led to a warning from UPI regarding the violation of the covenants. The situation escalated when UPI discovered that Kratzer was constructing an outbuilding that did not comply with the setback requirements. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter from UPI's attorney, Kratzer continued construction without submitting plans for ARC approval.
In April 2023, UPI filed a lawsuit against Kratzer and Moore for the violations, seeking to enforce the covenants and impose fines. The homeowners completed the outbuilding during the litigation process, which further complicated the case.
The Ruling
The Iowa Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Buller, ruled in favor of UPI, affirming the lower court's findings that Kratzer and Moore had violated multiple covenants. The court stated, "The district court found that Kratzer and Moore violated multiple covenants," and confirmed the imposition of a $100-per-day fine starting from May 10, 2024, until compliance was achieved.
The court also ordered the removal of the outbuilding and other structures that violated the covenants. Additionally, the court upheld the district court's decision to award UPI attorney fees, although it remanded the case for further consideration of the trial attorney fees awarded to UPI, stating that the lower court needed to address specific arguments made by Kratzer and Moore regarding those fees.
Impact
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to community covenants and the authority of property developers to enforce these rules. Homeowners in similar developments may face scrutiny and potential legal action if they fail to comply with established guidelines aimed at preserving property values and neighborhood aesthetics.
The court's decision also highlights the legal responsibilities of homeowners regarding property modifications and the necessity of obtaining proper approvals. This case may serve as a precedent for future disputes involving property covenants, reinforcing the idea that homeowners must be diligent in understanding and following community rules.
What's Next
The case may still see further developments as the court has remanded the issue of trial attorney fees back to the lower court for additional consideration. There are no indications in the court filing that the ruling will be appealed further, but the ongoing implications for Kratzer and Moore could involve additional legal costs and the necessity to comply with the court's orders.