Iowa 80 Truckstop, Inc., I-80 Investments Co, Inc., and Iowa I-80 Group, Inc. v. Scott County Board of Review

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0860
Filed June 10, 2026
_______________

Iowa 80 Truckstop, Inc., I-80 Investments Co., Inc.,
and Iowa 80 Group, Inc.,
Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Scott County Board of Review,
Defendant–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County,
The Honorable Jeffrey C. McDaniel, Judge.
_______________

REVERSED AND REMANDED
_______________

Spencer Willems (argued), Deborah M. Tharnish, and Sarah K. Franklin of
Dentons Davis Brown PC, Des Moines, attorneys for appellants.

Benjamin J. Kenkel (argued) and John E. Lande of Dickinson, Bradshaw,
Fowler, & Hagen, P.C., Des Moines, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Heard at oral argument
by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
Opinion by Ahlers, J.

1
AHLERS, Judge.

I-80 Investments Company, Inc.; Iowa 80 Group, Inc.; and Iowa 80
Truckstop, Inc.—collectively “Iowa 80”—own and operate the “World’s
Largest Truckstop,” which is in Scott County. The truck stop has several
components like convenience stores, restaurants, semitruck mechanic
facilities, a pet washing building, a movie theater, industrial storage, and
rental space for chiropractic, dental, and barber services. It is spread over
nineteen separate parcels of land. The Scott County Assessor increased the
assessed value of those parcels as of January 1, 2023.1 Iowa 80 filed protests
with respect to the valuation of the nineteen parcels with the Scott County
Board of Review. The board of review did not reduce the valuation of any
parcel, so Iowa 80 appealed to the district court under Iowa Code chapter 441
(2023). The district court determined that Iowa 80 failed to provide
competent evidence challenging the assessed values and affirmed the
decision of the board of review. Iowa 80 appeals.

We review an appeal of a tax protest de novo. Wellmark, Inc. v. Polk
Cnty. Bd. of Rev., 875 N.W.2d 667, 672 (Iowa 2016). We “give[] weight to the
fact-findings of the district court, but [we are] not bound by them.” Iowa R.

1
Iowa Code section 428.7 (2023), titled “Description of tracts—manner,”
provides:
A description shall not comprise more than one city lot or other smallest
subdivision of the land according to the government surveys, except in
cases where the boundaries are so irregular that it cannot be described in
the usual manner in accordance therewith. However, descriptions may be
combined for assessment purposes to allow the assessor to value the
property as a unit.

Here, the assessor valued the parcels separately, and Iowa 80 separately challenged each
assessment.

2
App. P. 6.904(3)(g); accord Boekeloo v. Bd. of Rev., 529 N.W.2d 275, 276 (Iowa
1995). And “we are ʻespecially deferential to the court’s assessment of the
credibility of witnesses.’” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Polk Cnty. Bd. of Rev.,
983 N.W.2d 37, 42 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted).

Chapter 441 requires that county assessors value property at its
“actual value,” meaning its “fair and reasonable market value.” Iowa Code
§ 441.21(1)(a), (b)(1). But property owners may protest the assessed value of
their property under Iowa Code section 441.37(1). In doing so, “the burden
of proof shall be upon any complainant attacking such valuation as excessive,
inadequate, inequitable, or capricious.” Id. § 441.21(3)(b)(2). However, if
“the complainant offers competent evidence that the market value of the
property is different than the market value determined by the assessor, the
burden of proof thereafter shall be upon the officials or persons seeking to
uphold such valuation to be assessed.” Id.

In the instant case, Iowa 80 presented testimony and an appraisal from
Timothy Schoemehl, a senior managing director of Integra Realty Resources,
in an effort to offer “competent evidence” and shift the burden to the board
of review to justify the assessor’s valuations of the nineteen parcels. When
completing the appraisal, Schoemehl did not consider the parcels
individually given the fact that all were a part of the truck stop business.
Instead, he appraised them as one property. In doing so, he failed to include
three of the contested parcels in the appraisal and erroneously included an
unrelated parcel not owned by Iowa 80.

Given the one-of-a-kind nature of the truck stop, Schoemehl appraised
the property as a whole (minus the three parcels) using three different
methodologies and reconciled those to reach a total appraisal value of
$20,100,000 (including the erroneously included parcel valuation) or

3
$19,766,855 (excluding the erroneously included parcel valuation). To reach
an individual valuation of each parcel, Schoemehl added the assessor’s
valuation of the individual parcels (again failing to include the three parcels
and erroneously including a parcel not at issue) to reach a total valuation,
determined what percentage an individual parcel contributed to that total,
and then multiplied his appraised total by that percentage for each parcel.

The district court took issue with Schoemehl’s failure to consider
three of the parcels, his erroneous inclusion of a parcel not at issue in his
appraisal, and several aspects of his methodology when completing the
appraisal. We do not necessarily disagree with the district court’s concerns
regarding Schoemehl’s appraisal, though we express no opinion on them.
But we disagree with the district court with respect to the import of those
concerns. The district court used its concerns to conclude that Iowa 80 failed
to present competent evidence that the market value of each parcel was
different than the market value determined by the assessor. But the standard
for competent evidence is not so rigid. Nationwide, 983 N.W.2d at 42.
Schoemehl used the relevant approaches—cost, sales, and income—in his
appraisal. See id. at 43. He also explained his rationale. See Kohl’s Dept.
Stores, Inc. v. Bd. of Rev., No. 15-1562, 2016 WL 7403722, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Dec. 21, 2016) (highlighting an appraiser’s detailed analysis to conclude
the appraiser’s opinion was competent evidence). We conclude that
Iowa 80’s evidence constituted competent evidence, so it cleared the low bar
imposed by section 441.21(3)(b)(2) to shift the burden to the board of review.
The district court’s concerns about that evidence go to the weight of the
evidence rather than its status as competent evidence.

Because the district court failed to accept Schoemehl’s appraisal as
competent evidence, it likewise failed to shift the burden to the board of

4
review to justify the assessed values of the parcels, so it did not determine
whether the board met its burden. Iowa Code § 441.21(3)(b)(2). As a result,
we do not have a relevant conclusion to review. And as a court of error
correction, id. § 602.5103(1), we conclude it is best to remand for the district
court to determine whether the board of review met its burden to uphold the
assessed value for each parcel at issue.2

As to the scope and procedure on remand, we provide two clarifying
points. First, we limit the district court’s consideration to the sixteen parcels
included in Schoemehl’s appraisal. Iowa 80 failed to present any evidence,
competent or otherwise, as to the market value of parcels 92304920R,
912539202, and 923049007, so Iowa 80’s challenge to the assessed values of
those parcels fails, and no further action by the district court is needed as to
those parcels. Second, as to the other sixteen parcels, the district court shall
make the determination whether the board of review met its burden to

2
We recognize that the supreme court declined to remand a property-tax-
assessment case to the district court for additional findings in Richards v. Hardin County
Board of Review, 393 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 1986). But we find the circumstances of this case
distinguishable from those in Richards. In Richards, the supreme court determined that
the district court correctly found that the plaintiff failed to present competent evidence to
shift the burden of proof to the board of review. 393 N.W.2d at 150. Because the plaintiff
failed to shift the burden, it remained his burden to establish that the challenged valuation
was excessive. Id. The supreme court determined that the district court ultimately failed
to properly consider the plaintiff’s testimony in light of his continued burden. Id. So, in
Richards, the appellate court had a ruling to review that applied the proper burden. Here,
we do not. Therefore, we find it best to give the district court an opportunity to make a
ruling under the shifted burden. If either party takes issue with the resulting ruling, that
party will have the right to appeal that ruling and the reviewing appellate court will have
an applicable order to review.

5
uphold the assessed value for each parcel based only on the evidence already
presented. No additional evidence shall be permitted.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

6