a state has the right to do whatever the heck it wants, question is, will they? you are not listening, they will not fight this battle, this battle has been fought at the local level and the state has lost. its precedent at a local level, stop trying to win a battle that is right on paper but not beatable in court. why cant we just focus on a way for the nr landowners to help and stop fighting a battle that no one cares to fight
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">None of those would have legal precendence in proving or disproving residency.</div></div>
Haven't searched "cases" for residency precedence, but this is what Iowa has proposed. I imagine they had their lawyers look over the verbiage and used some of it or possibly all of it from other States current requirements. I know new legislation is often written this way.
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATIONS AND LICENSES
Sec. 7. NEW SECTION.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">483A.1B FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE A
3 11 PERSON'S PRINCIPAL AND PRIMARY HOME OR DOMICILE.
3 12 1. The department shall determine whether a person
3 13 maintains a principal and primary home or domicile in this
3 14 state based on factors determined relevant by the department,
3 15 <u>including but not limited to all of the following:</u>
3 16 a. The person's place of employment.
3 17 b. The person's mailing address.
3 18 c. Whether the person's name is listed on utility records
3 19 for the claimed principal and primary home or domicile.
3 20 d. Whether the person's name appears on the title to land
3 21 in this state including the claimed principal and primary home
3 22 or domicile.
3 23 e. The address listed on the person's individual state and
3 24 federal income tax returns.
3 25 2. A person claiming to maintain a principal and primary
3 26 home or domicile in this state shall submit all documentation
3 27 required to establish that fact to the department or a person
3 28 designated by the department. The department or a person
3 29 designated by the department shall keep information contained
3 30 in the document confidential to the same extent that it would
3 31 otherwise be confidential by state or federal law.
</div></div>
If you wouldn't use your bills(credit card, utility bills, mail delivery, taxes, cell phone bills) ect to help you prove your residency then how would you guys?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know truckers who are home one weeked a month...so everything about this whole deal just went out the window.</div></div>
The trucker/salesman issue keeps coming up. Is this trucker maintaining a "second" home in another State? If the trucker was then he would have prove which is his "primary" residence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know plenty of folks who spend nearly 6 months a year in Florida or Texas and have mail forwarded, phone service etc.. </div></div>
Many retired Iowan's go to Florida for at least 6 months because they can establish residency. They do this because Florida is a State that has no State income tax. In order to get in-state tuition you have to reside in the State of Florida for 12 months prior to the first day of class. It is the State's right to decide what the requirements are for various privilages within their State.
I searched residency requirements to purchase a resident hunting/fishing license in Florida. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Residency
F.S. 372.001(1) defines "RESIDENT" as:
<u>Any person who has continually resided in this state for six months prior to applying for a license and who has an intent to continue to reside in Florida, and to claim Florida as their primary residence.</u>Any member of the United States Armed Forces who is stationed in Florida (includes spouse and depenedent children residing in household).
Acceptable Proof of Residency
Any ONE of the following:
Florida driver's license, "Florida Only" and "Florida Identification Card" are NOT acceptable proof
Military orders
Current Florida Homestead Exemption Card
Florida Voter's Registration Card
Landlord Affidavit for residency (for renters who do not drive, and do not possess any of the required proofs listed)
<u>If questioned by law enforcement, it is up to the customer to prove Florida residency. </u>Note: You cannot possess an out of state driver's license and still claim to be a Florida resident.</div></div>
I agree that this has been a good discussion.
Haven't searched "cases" for residency precedence, but this is what Iowa has proposed. I imagine they had their lawyers look over the verbiage and used some of it or possibly all of it from other States current requirements. I know new legislation is often written this way.
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATIONS AND LICENSES
Sec. 7. NEW SECTION.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">483A.1B FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE A
3 11 PERSON'S PRINCIPAL AND PRIMARY HOME OR DOMICILE.
3 12 1. The department shall determine whether a person
3 13 maintains a principal and primary home or domicile in this
3 14 state based on factors determined relevant by the department,
3 15 <u>including but not limited to all of the following:</u>
3 16 a. The person's place of employment.
3 17 b. The person's mailing address.
3 18 c. Whether the person's name is listed on utility records
3 19 for the claimed principal and primary home or domicile.
3 20 d. Whether the person's name appears on the title to land
3 21 in this state including the claimed principal and primary home
3 22 or domicile.
3 23 e. The address listed on the person's individual state and
3 24 federal income tax returns.
3 25 2. A person claiming to maintain a principal and primary
3 26 home or domicile in this state shall submit all documentation
3 27 required to establish that fact to the department or a person
3 28 designated by the department. The department or a person
3 29 designated by the department shall keep information contained
3 30 in the document confidential to the same extent that it would
3 31 otherwise be confidential by state or federal law.
</div></div>
If you wouldn't use your bills(credit card, utility bills, mail delivery, taxes, cell phone bills) ect to help you prove your residency then how would you guys?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know truckers who are home one weeked a month...so everything about this whole deal just went out the window.</div></div>
The trucker/salesman issue keeps coming up. Is this trucker maintaining a "second" home in another State? If the trucker was then he would have prove which is his "primary" residence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know plenty of folks who spend nearly 6 months a year in Florida or Texas and have mail forwarded, phone service etc.. </div></div>
Many retired Iowan's go to Florida for at least 6 months because they can establish residency. They do this because Florida is a State that has no State income tax. In order to get in-state tuition you have to reside in the State of Florida for 12 months prior to the first day of class. It is the State's right to decide what the requirements are for various privilages within their State.
I searched residency requirements to purchase a resident hunting/fishing license in Florida. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Residency
F.S. 372.001(1) defines "RESIDENT" as:
<u>Any person who has continually resided in this state for six months prior to applying for a license and who has an intent to continue to reside in Florida, and to claim Florida as their primary residence.</u>Any member of the United States Armed Forces who is stationed in Florida (includes spouse and depenedent children residing in household).
Acceptable Proof of Residency
Any ONE of the following:
Florida driver's license, "Florida Only" and "Florida Identification Card" are NOT acceptable proof
Military orders
Current Florida Homestead Exemption Card
Florida Voter's Registration Card
Landlord Affidavit for residency (for renters who do not drive, and do not possess any of the required proofs listed)
<u>If questioned by law enforcement, it is up to the customer to prove Florida residency. </u>Note: You cannot possess an out of state driver's license and still claim to be a Florida resident.</div></div>
I agree that this has been a good discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are not listening, they will not fight this battle, this battle has been fought at the local level and the state has lost. its precedent at a local level, stop trying to win a battle that is right on paper but not beatable in court. </div></div>
I'm listening. I just haven't heard a good reason not to support tougher requirements in order to close this "loop hole". If the CO shows that the individual was not residing in Iowa for 180 days prior to buying the license the judge can't throw it out for no reason. The judge has to uphold the law. It seems that this legislation originally started because a CO wanted/needed these tools in order to stop this exploitation of our resources. I have a hard time not giving the CO's the tools they want and need to win cases. Who wont fight this battle? It seems the CO's want to fight it. It would seem that the legislature is trying to fight this battle with this legislation. Once the laws are on the books and the CO proves the individual didn't meet the requirements. The judge has no choice but to find them guilty.
I'm listening. I just haven't heard a good reason not to support tougher requirements in order to close this "loop hole". If the CO shows that the individual was not residing in Iowa for 180 days prior to buying the license the judge can't throw it out for no reason. The judge has to uphold the law. It seems that this legislation originally started because a CO wanted/needed these tools in order to stop this exploitation of our resources. I have a hard time not giving the CO's the tools they want and need to win cases. Who wont fight this battle? It seems the CO's want to fight it. It would seem that the legislature is trying to fight this battle with this legislation. Once the laws are on the books and the CO proves the individual didn't meet the requirements. The judge has no choice but to find them guilty.
bjkpharmd
New Member
At this point- I hope it goes through just to see the challenge.
I've argued against it but there is no downside to me on either end. I won't try to claim residency no matter if it is 30 or 180 days so this doesn't affect me at all but if a lawsuit goes forth and NR landowners rights are established I will take advantage of the change.
I've argued against it but there is no downside to me on either end. I won't try to claim residency no matter if it is 30 or 180 days so this doesn't affect me at all but if a lawsuit goes forth and NR landowners rights are established I will take advantage of the change.
nannyslayer
New Member
Iowaqdm, you have argued "what" the law will do. You are right, it will close loopholes and everything will be peachy. What everyone here is trying to say is, it's not "what" the law will do, it's the "effects" that come from it. It's the lawsuits from Non-res. landowners that the state is not going to fight with, which instead will just turn its head and give in.
Pharmer, you are right, you will greatly benefit from this if it is passed through.
Pharmer, you are right, you will greatly benefit from this if it is passed through.
Fishbonker
Life Member
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pharmer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Pharmer, you are right, you will greatly benefit from this if it is passed through."
I have 32 acres in Washington county for sale mixed CRP and timber. I have 36 acres of solid timber for sale in Washington county. Maybe they aren't priced high enough if this changes? </div></div>
They are priced high enough now, if not, theyda sold a long time ago. To me.
The 'Bonker
I have 32 acres in Washington county for sale mixed CRP and timber. I have 36 acres of solid timber for sale in Washington county. Maybe they aren't priced high enough if this changes? </div></div>
They are priced high enough now, if not, theyda sold a long time ago. To me.
The 'Bonker
PYBucks
Member
I think the CO's are really pushing for the 180 days becasue their hands are tied right now. It's pretty easy to claim residence and the CO's can't do much about it. I was talking to the CO that lives up the road from us a couple weeks ago and he's really hoping it gets changed to 180 days. So he must think it's going to make a difference.
I know 4 guys that claim Iowa residence and basically don't live in Iowa. Two are landowners.
I know 4 guys that claim Iowa residence and basically don't live in Iowa. Two are landowners.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What everyone here is trying to say is, it's not "what" the law will do, it's the "effects" that come from it. It's the lawsuits from Non-res. landowners that the state is not going to fight with, which instead will just turn its head and give in. </div></div>
I have to admit that I am extremely disappointed in the replys that I have read. Everyone is ready to roll over give up. I have tried to show everyone the legal precedent that would indicate that they couldn't win a lawsuit. I believe the State would fight the suit with all their resources and will win if it's not dismissed first. There is a lot more to this right than just deer hunting. A States rights to control privileges like this go well beyond hunting. One example is to qualify for in-State tuition.
To qualify for in-State tuition coming in from another State you must:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Reside in Iowa for 12 consecutive months and be primarily engaged in activities other than those of a full-time student, immediately prior to the beginning of the term for which resident classification is sought.</div></div>
How many nonresident parents that send their children to the U of I for Undergrad, Grad, or Med school would like to be able to send their kids to Iowa 30 days before the start of classes so they can avoid the NR fees. Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 tuition prices for Med school at U of I: Resident 12+ fee hours $11,625.50, Non-resident 12+ fee hours $20,963.50.
I guess maybe we should just roll over and give unlimited NR tags while we're at it. I expected a little more backbone from the die hards on this site. I sure wish I could go back and have HCH or T250 make OneCam's original post. I would have liked to see how this thread would have been different. Who else would have posted. How the members views would have been different, ect. Let me ask the residents that don't want this legislation a couple things. Please feel free to answer any, all, or none of them. 1. If nonresident landowner's had any chance of winning, why haven't they sued already? 2. Do you really think that these NR landowners have a chance of winning when the President has signed a bill giving the State this right and since the signing there have been multiple cases where the judges ruled in favor of the State when the nonresidents tried to sue? 3. Do you have an inside connection to the State of Iowa's legal team that indicated they would not fight this issue? I ask this because many are convinced/adamant for some reason that Iowa wouldn't fight this. Let me assure all of you that I had heard/gotten the argument that "Iowa will not fight this" long before krh's last post or nannyslayers post. I just don't believe it. If you know for fact that Iowa wouldn't fight this then please tell me how you found this out.
I have to admit that I am extremely disappointed in the replys that I have read. Everyone is ready to roll over give up. I have tried to show everyone the legal precedent that would indicate that they couldn't win a lawsuit. I believe the State would fight the suit with all their resources and will win if it's not dismissed first. There is a lot more to this right than just deer hunting. A States rights to control privileges like this go well beyond hunting. One example is to qualify for in-State tuition.
To qualify for in-State tuition coming in from another State you must:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Reside in Iowa for 12 consecutive months and be primarily engaged in activities other than those of a full-time student, immediately prior to the beginning of the term for which resident classification is sought.</div></div>
How many nonresident parents that send their children to the U of I for Undergrad, Grad, or Med school would like to be able to send their kids to Iowa 30 days before the start of classes so they can avoid the NR fees. Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 tuition prices for Med school at U of I: Resident 12+ fee hours $11,625.50, Non-resident 12+ fee hours $20,963.50.
I guess maybe we should just roll over and give unlimited NR tags while we're at it. I expected a little more backbone from the die hards on this site. I sure wish I could go back and have HCH or T250 make OneCam's original post. I would have liked to see how this thread would have been different. Who else would have posted. How the members views would have been different, ect. Let me ask the residents that don't want this legislation a couple things. Please feel free to answer any, all, or none of them. 1. If nonresident landowner's had any chance of winning, why haven't they sued already? 2. Do you really think that these NR landowners have a chance of winning when the President has signed a bill giving the State this right and since the signing there have been multiple cases where the judges ruled in favor of the State when the nonresidents tried to sue? 3. Do you have an inside connection to the State of Iowa's legal team that indicated they would not fight this issue? I ask this because many are convinced/adamant for some reason that Iowa wouldn't fight this. Let me assure all of you that I had heard/gotten the argument that "Iowa will not fight this" long before krh's last post or nannyslayers post. I just don't believe it. If you know for fact that Iowa wouldn't fight this then please tell me how you found this out.
dbltree
Super Moderator
This discussion has went back and forth over the possibles of winning or not winning a court battle and I really don't know about all that, it's all spculation at this point.
It's a matter of weighing the odds and risks...
What I still want to know...and for all the argueing here, not one single person has shown a single case where someone was successfully prosecuted soley for not meeting the 30 day residency requirement (assuming all other requirments were met)
If one has a legal address (owning a home is not a residency requirment,) has a DL, registered to vote, files taxes as an Iowa resident, and does not do anything as a resident of another state...then 30 days or 180 days is a moot point!!
Your barking up the wrong tree friend...but keep barking...that's why we have this great forum! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
It's a matter of weighing the odds and risks...
What I still want to know...and for all the argueing here, not one single person has shown a single case where someone was successfully prosecuted soley for not meeting the 30 day residency requirement (assuming all other requirments were met)
If one has a legal address (owning a home is not a residency requirment,) has a DL, registered to vote, files taxes as an Iowa resident, and does not do anything as a resident of another state...then 30 days or 180 days is a moot point!!
Your barking up the wrong tree friend...but keep barking...that's why we have this great forum! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
Outdoor Family
New Member
Iowaqdm
You seem to have a good grasp on this possible change. I'm hoping you could explain if there is any exception for a new resident to Iowa that travels outside of Iowa state lines within that 30/180 day period. I believe that the law states "physically reside for xx continuous days"...
30 days doable...180 days, I know that travel will happen, making it illegal for me to ever buy a resident license???
You seem to have a good grasp on this possible change. I'm hoping you could explain if there is any exception for a new resident to Iowa that travels outside of Iowa state lines within that 30/180 day period. I believe that the law states "physically reside for xx continuous days"...
30 days doable...180 days, I know that travel will happen, making it illegal for me to ever buy a resident license???
dbltree, you have hit the nail on the head and that is what i have been trying to say. If a person does all of those things, it will be pretty hard to win. these are the cases that have lost at the local level and the reason why many co's will not even bother with this anymore
dbltree
Super Moderator
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> dbltree, you have hit the nail on the head and that is what i have been trying to say. If a person does all of those things, it will be pretty hard to win. these are the cases that have lost at the local level and the reason why many co's will not even bother with this anymore </div></div>
Exactly...and that doesn't mean I like it...but law is law and one's physical whereabouts has no legal bearing on residency.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: iowaqdm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Outdoor Family, are you planning on maintaining a second home in another State after you move to Iowa? </div></div>
Having a home in another state...(or 6 of them for that matter)also has absolutely no legal bearing when it comes to residency.
I know many people who have homes on the Lake of the Ozarks for instance, one is a contractor and often spends weeks at a time there. That has nothing to do with being a resident of Iowa.
My point in all of this, is that at least now we have some chance of stemming the tide when it comes to the sale of land to NR's but if we force someones hand...well...my farm may suddenly be worth a whole lot more.
As they say...why cut off your nose to spite your face??
Exactly...and that doesn't mean I like it...but law is law and one's physical whereabouts has no legal bearing on residency.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: iowaqdm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Outdoor Family, are you planning on maintaining a second home in another State after you move to Iowa? </div></div>
Having a home in another state...(or 6 of them for that matter)also has absolutely no legal bearing when it comes to residency.
I know many people who have homes on the Lake of the Ozarks for instance, one is a contractor and often spends weeks at a time there. That has nothing to do with being a resident of Iowa.
My point in all of this, is that at least now we have some chance of stemming the tide when it comes to the sale of land to NR's but if we force someones hand...well...my farm may suddenly be worth a whole lot more.
As they say...why cut off your nose to spite your face??
Outdoor Family
New Member
IowaQDM
Possible, but unlikely....sell one house to build another...but I could have a second home in another state. The Iowa home would be the primary house, with all taxes, DL, etc show this. In my possible situation, I really wouldn't care about 30 or 180 days, as it could mean missing one year...the word "continually physically reside" would put me in a position of breaking the law or not moving, at least the way I read it...
THIS BETTER BE THE LAST SNOW FALL THIS SPRING…TIME TO PLOW..
Possible, but unlikely....sell one house to build another...but I could have a second home in another state. The Iowa home would be the primary house, with all taxes, DL, etc show this. In my possible situation, I really wouldn't care about 30 or 180 days, as it could mean missing one year...the word "continually physically reside" would put me in a position of breaking the law or not moving, at least the way I read it...
THIS BETTER BE THE LAST SNOW FALL THIS SPRING…TIME TO PLOW..
the word physically reside applies to everyone and if that rule was actually enforceable half the state would be in violation come opening day gun season, its a rule of thumb and the rule states , physically reside or be registered to vote, If you are so concerened with this, just register to vote. with todays job market , technology etc, people are moving all over, traveling out of state etc, lets be really extreme , lets say you live in say centerville, but work in mo. now you cant hunt cause you go out of state, spliytting hairs here, if you really call iowa your primary residence, you have absolutely nothing to worry about
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you really call iowa your primary residence, you have absolutely nothing to worry about
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thanks krh
Not sure why the word physically has people so excited and worked up.
</div></div>
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thanks krh
Not sure why the word physically has people so excited and worked up.
</div></div>
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif