## Facts

- The Grahams sold agricultural land to the Henrys under a real estate contract requiring annual payments.
- After financial strain in the farm economy, the Henrys missed the annual payment due December 1, 1987.
- The Grahams’ attorney served a notice of forfeiture, then withdrew it because Iowa Code § 654A.6 required a creditor to request mediation and obtain a mediation release before forfeiture.
- A mediation session occurred on February 19, 1988 through the Iowa Farmer/Creditor Mediation Service, Inc., a nonprofit operating under contract with the state agriculture department.
- At mediation, the Grahams’ attorney was hostile and uncooperative, prevented the Henrys from presenting proposals, and demanded an immediate mediation release.
- The mediation service refused to issue a release, citing the attorney’s conduct, and extended mediation time by thirty days.
- The Grahams’ attorney nevertheless served a second forfeiture notice without a release.
- The Henrys sued to enjoin forfeiture for lack of a mediation release; the district court enjoined forfeiture.
- The Grahams then sought mandamus to compel the mediation service to issue a release; the district court ordered issuance, and the Henrys appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Iowa Farmer/Creditor Mediation Service, Inc. functioned as a “state agency” subject to judicial review under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.
2. Whether a creditor “participates” in mediation under Iowa Code § 654A.6 by merely attending, even if refusing to negotiate or cooperate.
3. Whether mandamus could compel issuance of a mediation release on the ground that the mediator’s duty to issue the release was ministerial, and whether procedural objections barred relief.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the order compelling issuance of a mediation release.
- The mediation service was not a state agency for purposes of administrative judicial review.
- The creditor satisfied the statutory participation requirement by attending the mediation session; the statute did not require good-faith negotiation or substantive cooperation.
- Because the statutory prerequisites were met, the mediator had a ministerial duty to issue the release, enforceable by mandamus.
- The court rejected procedural objections to mandamus and allowed the compelled issuance of the release.

## Legal Principles

- A private nonprofit administering a statutory program under contract with a state department is not necessarily a “state agency” absent governmental powers such as rulemaking or adjudication.
- Under Iowa Code § 654A.6, a creditor’s pre-forfeiture obligations are limited to requesting mediation and participating; “participation” is satisfied by attendance at the mediation session.
- A mediation provider may not restrict a statutory entitlement to a mediation release by applying internal standards that demand cooperative bargaining when the statute imposes no such requirement.
- Mandamus is available to compel performance of a clear statutory duty that is ministerial rather than discretionary, including issuance of a mediation release after the statutory conditions are met.

## Conclusion

The court held that the creditor’s attendance at mediation satisfied the statutory participation requirement, the mediation service lacked discretion to withhold a release based on uncooperative behavior, and mandamus properly compelled issuance of the mediation release; the mediation service’s decision was not reviewable as agency action under the administrative procedure statute.


Graham v. Baker, 447 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 1989)