Judge: Missouri Valley building official acted 'arbitrarily and unlawfully' in revoking fence permit
Don Harrold, Executive Editor
editor@enterprisepub.com
A district judge ruled Missouri Valley's building official acted arbitrarily and unlawfully when he revoked a resident's fence permit, the city's Board of Adjustment acted unlawfully in upholding him, and the resident was denied due process when her attempt to appeal was not forwarded to the board.
Chief Judge Craig M. Dreismeier of the Fourth Judicial District of Iowa entered the order Aug. 27 in Barrett and Lori White v. City of Missouri Valley, Missouri Valley Board of Adjustment and John Harrison, case No. CVCV031444. The court assessed the costs of the action to the City of Missouri Valley and ruled the Whites' fence should remain in place, provided it meets the requirements of the city's fence ordinance, "which it presumably does."
The Whites represented themselves. The city, the board and Harrison were represented by attorney Robert Livingston.
Asked about the ruling, City Clerk/Administrator Turri Colglazier declined to comment, citing advice from the city's attorney and describing the matter as pending litigation. Two City Council members also declined to comment.
The court found Harrison, the city's building official, issued the Whites a fence permit on Nov. 5, 2024. Their next-door neighbor raised concerns about a recorded easement over the shared driveway. On Nov. 13, 2024, after consulting the city attorney, Harrison sent a letter suspending and revoking the permit, stating it "was issued in error, without consent of both parties since they both hold interest in the driveway property."
Of that letter, the court wrote: "It is clear that this letter from Harrison does not advise White of any right to appeal, the time in which to appeal, where to file an appeal, etc."
The same day, White sent a letter to the City Council, the city administrator, code enforcement, the deputy clerk and the mayor asking to formally address the revocation and requesting a review and a meeting with city officials.
"Documentation within the Return reflects attempts to have this issue brought before the city council but ultimately to no avail," the court wrote. "It is clear that this was never referred to the Board for purposes of hearing an appeal by either Harrison or any other city official."
The city's zoning ordinance requires that a notice of appeal be filed with the building official, and that the building official "shall forthwith transmit to the Board all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken."
The court found Harrison understood the rules and did not act on them: "Even though White was not familiar with the applicable rules related to the appeals and the Board's involvement in the same, Harrison clearly is yet he failed to inform the Board in any fashion of White's request to formally challenge his decision."
"White's due process rights were violated when no hearing was otherwise set before the Board," the order states.
A footnote in the order notes Harrison had told White he was required by Iowa law to forward the record of an appeal to the board — a statement made in connection with a later appeal.
White built the fence. On July 28, 2025, Harrison issued an enforcement letter ordering her to remove or modify it. That letter did contain right-to-appeal language, and White appealed. The board heard the matter Dec. 15, 2025.
"It became clear that not all of White's information was provided to the Board as requested by White," the court wrote, "while other documentation was presented to the Board including but not limited to an expert report" prepared for the neighbor.
White objected that the board had not reviewed her materials in advance and asked for a continuance. The board declined and proceeded. The court found she had 27 paper exhibits "which she assumed were circulated to the Board in advance but as noted, this did not occur."
The order finds Harrison repeatedly narrowed what the board was being asked to decide. It quotes him telling the board that "whether or not she put up a fence without a permit is the entire case here today. There ain't nothing else."
The court also quotes an exchange between White and board member Collier. When White said the board could recognize that Harrison "overstepped his municipal," Collier responded, "That's not my job." White said that was exactly the board's job. Collier replied, "No. That's the city council's job."
Collier later added: "Well, I wish you would have been-John would have been clearer and said – Lori, Mrs. White- you can appeal this."
When White again raised the revocation, Collier said, "That's for a court to decide. I'm ready to vote."
At another point, when White said she could show she had a valid permit and would present her exhibits, the order states a board member said, "I don't care."
The court found Harrison "did not forward all the information in advance to the Board as required by statute," and that "Harrison, along with several Board members, did not think what White was trying to show them was even relevant to the proceeding."
In their brief, the city's attorneys acknowledged the board was operating without procedures.
"Respondents acknowledge the Board lacked rules, such that it set no deadline for the time to appeal," the court wrote, citing pages 22 and 25 of the respondents' brief.
The city says the board adopted written rules that same day.
In response to questions from the Times-Reporter, Colglazier provided three documents she said were "adopted at the December 15, 2025, Board of Adjustment meeting": Resolution BOA-25-01, authorizing the building official to perform administrative duties including preparing meeting packets and maintaining board records; Resolution BOA-25-02, on setting meeting dates; and a Board of Adjustment Procedures Policy.
The Procedures Policy sets a 30-day appeal deadline, requires the building official to prepare a packet containing the "Application and supporting documents," and states: "The Board must base its decision solely on the evidence presented."
The copy provided to the Times-Reporter is unsigned. Its adoption line reads "Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on" followed by a blank, and it carries no date and no signature block. Both resolutions are signed and dated Dec. 15, 2025.
The Times-Reporter asked the city for a signed copy of the policy and for minutes of the Dec. 15, 2025 meeting showing when the rules were adopted in relation to White's appeal. The city did not provide them before publication.
None of the three documents requires that appeal rights appear on enforcement or revocation notices.
"In summary, this court finds White was deprived of their right to due process of a timely appeal of Harrison's decision to revoke their fence permit," Dreismeier wrote.
The order continues: "this court finds that Harrison, as affirmed by the Board, acted arbitrarily and unlawfully by revoking the fence permit as a result of the existence of the Easement agreement regardless as to whether or not it was disclosed or otherwise known by Harrison at the time the permit was issued."
"Harrison's consideration of the Easement at all, was unlawful and an impermissible factor to rely upon," the order states.
The court found the easement was a private matter between neighbors and outside the city's authority to enforce. Revoking a permit for a reason outside the city's regulatory authority, the order states, "would constitute an arbitrary and unlawful exercise of that authority."
The court found Harrison had followed the ordinance when he first issued the permit: "Harrison in fact complied with the ordinances of Missouri Valley when he initially approved White's fence permit."
The order also acknowledges the city's position had some grounding. The court wrote that it was "understandable why Harrison and the Board members were concerned about White constructing a fence without a valid permit," and that the fence was technically built without a valid permit, so the board's decision on that issue alone "would have otherwise been appropriate." Because the revocation was unlawful, the court found, White would have had a valid permit all along.
The court affirmed the writ of certiorari, ruled the fence should remain in place, and directed that any dispute over the easement be resolved between the neighbors in a separate civil proceeding.
White addressed the City Council on Sept. 1, five days after the ruling, and used the full three minutes allotted to speakers.
"I just hope that government, you know, should not require a citizen to sue simply to receive the due process," she said. She asked the council to create written appeal procedures and to put appeal rights on every enforcement and revocation notice, noting her own revocation letter had none.
"I don't want you guys to reduce this to, 'This is Lori and her fence,'" she said. "This is about a citizen who pays taxes, who did follow the city process and came and asked for help from everyone."
She gave council members a copy of the court order. No council member responded, and the meeting moved to the consent agenda.
In written responses to questions, White said the dispute was never really about a fence.
"I went through the City's process, obtained a permit, and tried to do everything the right way," she wrote. "What I never anticipated was that the City itself would eventually become the roadblock."
She said she emailed every council member, the mayor, the city administrator and the building inspector multiple times requesting review, and that both the city administrator and building inspector committed to getting the matter on a city agenda.
"At no point was I properly notified of my right to appeal or given that process despite my repeated requests," she wrote. "Commitments were not followed through on, emails went unanswered, and I was left trying to navigate a process the City should have clearly provided from the beginning."
"City officials work for the citizens they serve," she wrote. "Residents should not have to fight City Hall simply to get an answer, have a commitment honored, or receive the process they are legally entitled to."
White said she hopes the ruling restores trust in local government, and noted that hiring an attorney for a dispute with City Hall is out of reach for many families.
"You have rights," she wrote. "If something does not sound right, ask questions. Push back respectfully. Ask where the rule is written. Request the records."
Council member Aaron Tuttle was asked for his reaction to the ruling, whether the council should consider White's requested changes, and whether the city could learn anything from the case.
"I understand you spoke to City Hall today and got some clarity on the issue," Tuttle wrote Sept. 8. "At this time, I do not have any further comment."
Council member Chris Gilpin, asked the same questions, wrote Sept. 9: "i do not have a comment, this all happened prior to me getting onto council."
Colglazier wrote Sept. 8: "Other than providing those documents, and consistent with the advice of the attorney representing the City in this matter, I have no further comment regarding the pending litigation."
Harrison did not respond to questions submitted Sunday afternoon.
The council has taken no public action on either of White's requests since she made them on Sept. 1, and neither appears on a council agenda. The city has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.
