ROBERT J. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, David L.
Christensen (first petition) and Terry Rickers (second
appeals the district court opinion affirming the agency's
decision denying his request for a resident hunting license.
W. Norris, Corydon, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and David L. Dorff, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
Schultz appeals the district court opinion affirming the
agency's decision denying his request for a resident
hunting license. We find the agency properly applied the law
after the case was remanded back to the agency by the
district court. The agency's decision is supported by
substantial evidence. Other issues raised on appeal have not
been preserved for our review. We affirm the district
court's opinion affirming the agency's ruling Schultz
was not entitled to a resident hunting license.
Background Facts & Proceedings
purchased a resident hunting license in Iowa for several
years prior to 2010. In 2009, the legislature amended the
residency requirements for fishing and hunting licenses.
See 2009 Iowa Acts ch. 144, §§ 34, 35. A
conservation officer noticed Schultz was at a trailer on his
father's property only on weekends or during hunting
season, and this raised "red flags" about his
residency in Iowa.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) sent Schultz a
letter requesting information about his residency status.
Schultz responded he was employed in Medina, Minnesota; he
did not receive mail in Iowa; he did not pay any utility
bills, as his father paid them; he considered his
father's home in Chariton, Iowa, to be his residence; and
he had no vehicles registered in Iowa. The DNR additionally
determined Schultz listed a Minnesota address on his tax
returns, he paid property taxes in Iowa, his job in Minnesota
was a five-hour drive from Chariton, and Schultz did not own
a vehicle-he either drove a company vehicle or his
father's vehicle. In June 2010, the DNR informed Schultz
"the totality of the circumstances indicate that Mr.
Schultz was claiming Iowa residence solely for hunting
purposes, " and he therefore, did not meet the residency
requirements found in Iowa Code section 483A.1A(10)(a)
appealed the agency's decision. A hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ) was held on May 27, 2011.
During the hearing, evidence was presented to show Schultz
had both Iowa and Minnesota driver's licenses. The ALJ
noted under section 483A.2, a person cannot obtain a resident
hunting license if the person claims any resident privileges
in another state. The ALJ determined Schultz had claimed
resident privileges in Minnesota by obtaining a driver's
license there and so could not be considered a resident of
Iowa for purposes of obtaining a hunting license. The DNR
affirmed the ALJ's decision.
filed a petition for judicial review (CVCV032267). The
district court entered a decision on December 6, 2012, making
the following rulings: (1) the 2009 amendments to section
483A.1A did not operate retroactively; (2) Schultz was
required to meet current residency requirements; (3) the
statute was not void for vagueness; (4) the statute did not
violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause; (5) the statute
did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; (6) the statute
did not violate the Due Process Clause; and (7) Schultz had
the burden of proof to show he was a resident of Iowa. The
court determined a Minnesota driver's license was not a
resident privilege of Minnesota and the DNR should not have
based its decision on section 483A.2. The court also
determined the ALJ should not have made an adverse inference
because Schultz did not specify how much time he spent in
Iowa. The court reversed the decision of the DNR and remanded
for further proceedings.
held a hearing on remand on June 27, 2013. No new evidence
was presented, and the hearing consisted solely of legal
arguments. Looking at the evidence previously submitted, the
In light of the paucity of relevant evidence produced by
Schultz, and the other evidence submitted by the department
showing Schultz's extensive physical and legal ties to
the state of Minnesota, I must conclude that Schultz has not
carried his burden of proof to establish that he is a
resident of the State of Iowa for purposes of enjoying