author: TERNUS, Justice.

text:
    Terry ALBRECHT, Individually and as Guardian and Conservator of Sara Albrecht, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.
    No. 01-0023.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 17, 2002.

      James L. Kramer and Neven J. Mulhol-land of Johnson, Erb, Bice, Kramer, Good & Mulholland, P.C., Fort Dodge, for appellant.
    Thomas P. Branigan, Terrence E. Hag-gerty and Andrea L. Laginess of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Detroit, Michigan, and William H. Habhab, Fort Dodge, for appel-lee.
   TERNUS, Justice.

This products liability suit is before us on appeal because the parties dispute whether the statute of repose set forth in Iowa Code section 614.1(2A) (1999) is extended for minors pursuant to Iowa Code section 614.8(2). The district court dismissed the plaintiffs claim, ruling that the extension provision did not apply and, therefore, the statute of repose barred the plaintiffs suit against the defendant manufacturer. We agree with the district court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes and affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 15, 1999, seventeen-year-old Sara Albrecht was injured when the car she was driving collided with another vehicle. Her father, Terry Albrecht, acting as his daughter’s conservator and guardian, filed suit against the manufacturer of the ear, General Motors Corporation (GM). The petition asserted that GM was hable for Sara’s injuries because the seat belt Sara was wearing at the time of the accident allegedly failed.

In its answer, GM raised Iowa Code section 614.1(2A) as an affirmative defense. This statute, in general terms, requires that any products liability claim be brought with fifteen years of the product’s initial purchase. See Iowa Code § 614.K2A).

Relying on the allegations of the plaintiffs petition, GM filed a motion to dismiss. Albrecht resisted. Although he did not dispute that more than fifteen years had elapsed since the automobile in question was first purchased, he claimed that section 614.1(2A) did not apply to minors. Albrecht relied on Iowa Code section 614.8(2), which extends limitations periods for minors until one year after they attain the age of majority. See id. § 614.8(2). (It was undisputed that suit was filed within one year after Sara reached the age of majority.) GM responded that the extension provision applied only to the two-year statute of limitation for personal injuries, see id. § 614.1(2), not to section 614.1(2A)’s statute of repose.

The district court granted GM’s motion to dismiss. Noting that statutes of repose were different from statutes of limitation, the court held that section 614.8(2) did not apply to statutes of repose. Albrecht appealed.

II. Applicable Legal Principles.

A. Scope of Review. We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for correction of errors at law. Pa. Life Ins. Co. v. Simoni, 641 N.W.2d 807, 810 (Iowa 2002). “A motion to dismiss is sustainable only when it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claims asserted.” Haupt v. Miller, 514 N.W.2d 905, 911 (Iowa 1994). For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the facts alleged in the pleading sought to be dismissed. Simoni, 641 N.W.2d at 810. Accordingly, a statute-of-repose defense is properly raised by a motion to dismiss only when the necessary facts appear on the face of the petition. Harden v. State, 434 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Iowa 1989).

B. Principles of statutory interpretation. Because the propriety of dismissal in this case rests on the applicability of various provisions of chapter 614, we are guided by principles of statutory interpretation.

“The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the legislature.” We presume that when the legislature enacts a statute that it intends “[a] just and reasonable result.” Accordingly, the court interprets statutes so as to avoid absurd results. In addition, we “construe statutes that relate to the same or a closely allied subject together so as to produce a harmonious and consistent body of legislation.”

State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 616 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).

Unless a statute is ambiguous, we will apply the statute “in accordance with its plain meaning.” Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman v. Miller, 543 N.W.2d 899, 902 (Iowa 1996). “Ambiguity exists if reasonable minds may differ or may be uncertain as to the meaning of the statute.” State v. Green, 470 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Iowa 1991). “Ambiguity may arise from specific language used in a statute or when the provision at issue is considered in the context of the entire statute or related statutes.” Midwest Auto. III, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 425 (Iowa 2002). To resolve an ambiguity, the court considers “the objects sought to be accomplished [and] the evils sought to be remedied.” Green, 470 N.W.2d at 18. We then choose “a reasonable construction that will effectuate the statute’s purpose rather than one that will defeat it.” Id.

III. Discussion.

We commence our analysis with a discussion of two matters of importance: (1) the distinction between a statute of limitation and a statute of repose; and (2) the evolution of limitations periods in chapter 614. We think an understanding of these matters will be helpful in resolving the dispute in this case. After that discussion, we will address the merits of the issue before us.

A. Statutes of limitation and repose. Historically, our court did not distinguish between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. E.g., Wilber v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 476 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Iowa 1991) (stating that statutes of limitations “are statutes of repose”); Schulte v. Wageman, 465 N.W.2d 285, 287 (Iowa 1991) (stating that a statute of limitation ‘is a statute of repose’ ” (citation omitted)); Grand Lodge of Iowa of the Indep. Order of Odd Fellows v. Osceola Lodge No. 18, 178 N.W.2d 362, 372 (Iowa 1970) (stating that “[l]imitation acts are statutes of repose”); Boehnke v. Roenfanz, 246 Iowa 240, 247, 67 N.W.2d 585, 590-91 (1954) (using terms interchangeably). We first noted that statutes of limitation and statutes of repose were not the same in 1993. In Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc. v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993), we said:

“Statutes of repose are different from statutes of limitation, although they have comparable effects.” A statute of limitations bars, after a certain period of time, the right to prosecute an accrued cause of action.
By contrast, a statute of repose “terminates any right of action after a specified time has elapsed, regardless of whether or not there has as yet been an injury.”
A statute of repose period begins to run from the occurrence of some event other than the event of an injury that gives rise to a cause of action and, therefore, bars a cause of action before the injury occurs.
Under a statute of repose, therefore, the mere passage of time can prevent a legal right from ever arising.

Bob McKiness Excavating, 507 N.W.2d at 408 (citations omitted). See generally 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 7, at 456 (2000) (“A true statute of limitations prescribes a time period within which an action must be brought upon claims or rights to be enforced, and should be distinguished from ... statutes of repose.” (Emphasis added.)).

To summarize, a statute of limitations runs from the accrual of a cause of action, whereas a statute of repose runs from a different, earlier date typically related to an act of the defendant. Id. § 9, at 458, § 31, at 471. They are fundamentally different insofar as a statute of limitations sets forth the time within which an accrued claim must be asserted in court, in contrast to a statute of repose that operates to prevent a cause of action from even accruing. Id. § 12, at 459 (“[W]hile a statute of limitation merely limits the time in which a plaintiff may bring suit after a cause of action accrues, a statute of repose extinguishes a cause of action after a fixed period of time ..., regardless of when the cause of action accrued.”). In other words, a statute of limitations affects only the remedy, not the right, see Schulte, 465 N.W.2d at 287, whereas a statute of repose affects the right itself, extinguishing existing rights or preventing rights from arising.

Although the purposes underlying statutes of limitation and statutes of repose are similar, they are not identical. Both types of statutes “are designed to prevent the trial of stale claims because evidence gathering is usually made more difficult by the passage of time.” Fisher v. McCrary-Rost Clinic, P.C., 580 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1998). In addition, statutes of repose “reflect the legislative conclusion that a point in time arrives beyond which a potential defendant should be immune from liability for past conduct.” 51 Am. Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 18, at 463. Such statutes “avoid the difficulties in proof and recordkeeping that suits involving older claims impose ... and protect certain classes of persons ... from claims that are virtually indefensible after the passage of time.” Id.

B. Legislative evolution of statutes of limitation and repose in Iowa. Before the 1975 enactment of a special provision dealing with medical malpractice claims, section 614.1 contained various limitation periods that ran from the accrual of the cause of action. See Iowa Code § 614.1 (1975). This statute stated that “[a]ctions may be brought within the times herein limited, respectively, after their causes accrue and not afterwards, except when otherwise specially declared.” Id. (emphasis added). It then, in eight subsections, listed categories of injuries and the time periods for commencement of suit. See id.

In 1975, the legislature added a subsection to this statute that addressed medical malpractice claims and varied from the previous pattern. See 1975 Iowa Acts ch. 239, § 26 (codified at Iowa Code section 614.1(9) (1977)). The first portion of this new subsection imposed a two-year limitations period on actions “founded on injuries to the person or wrongful death against any physician and surgeon ... arising out of patient care.” Iowa Code § 614.1(9). The two-year period was expressly made to commence upon discovery of the injury. Id. (stating that claim must be brought “within two years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of, the injury or death for which damages are sought”). Having the limitations period run from discovery of the injury was consistent with our prior case law holding that a cause of action does not accrue until “it is or should have been discovered.” Baines v. Blenderman, 223 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Iowa 1974) (applying so-called “discovery rule” to medical malpractice cases); accord Chrischilles v. Griswold, 260 Iowa 453, 463, 150 N.W.2d 94, 100 (1967) (adopting discovery rule, holding that limitations period does not begin to run until plaintiff knows or should know of injury and its cause).

Of more significance to the present dispute is the second portion of section 614.1(9). The latter part of this statute set an outer limit on when a medical malpractice action could be commenced:

but in no event shall any action be brought more than six years after the date on which occurred the act or omission or occurrence alleged in the action to have been the cause of the injury or death unless a foreign object unintentionally left in the body caused the injury or death.

Iowa Code § 614.1(9) (emphasis added). The practical effect of the dual components of section 614.1(9) is to impose a two-year statute of limitations on the filing of medical malpractice suits that runs from discovery of the injury and to impose a six-year absolute limit on such claims that runs, not from the accrual of the claim, but from the act causing the injury.

When our court first considered the six-year limit, we characterized it as a restriction on the operation of the discovery rule. See Kohrt v. Yetter, 344 N.W.2d 245, 247 (Iowa 1984) (stating that six-year period is an exception to the discovery rule for medical malpractice claims). In fact, it also operates as a statute of repose, barring a claim before it even accrues, i.e., is discovered. See Bob McKiness Excavating, 507 N.W.2d at 408 (citing to case analyzing section 614.1(9) in support of statement that a statute of repose can prevent a legal right from ever arising). Moreover, since our decision in Kohrt, we have referred to the six-year bar as a statute of repose. See Fisher, 580 N.W.2d at 725.

Subsequent to the adoption of section 614.1(9), our legislature enacted two additional subsections that are clearly statutes of repose. See 1997 Iowa Acts ch. 197, § 5 (codified at Iowa Code section 614.1(2A) (1999)); 1986 Iowa Acts ch. 1120, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code section 614.1(11) (1999)). Iowa Code section 614.1(11) bars suits directed to improvements on real property “fifteen years after the date on which occurred the act or omission of the defendant alleged in the action to have been the cause of the injury or death.” Iowa Code § 614.1(11). We have held that this provision is a statute of repose. Bob McKiness Excavating, 507 N.W.2d at 408.

The second statute of repose adopted by the legislature is the statute at issue here — section 614.1(2A). It provides in relevant part:

Those [actions] founded on the death of a person or injuries to the person or property brought against the manufacturer ... of a product based upon an alleged defect in the design, inspection, testing, manufacturing, formulation, marketing, packaging, warning, labeling of the product, or any other alleged defect or failure of whatever nature or kind, based on the theories of strict liability in tort, negligence, or breach of an implied warranty shall not be commenced more than fifteen years after the product was first purchased, leased, bailed, or installed for use or consumption. ...

Iowa Code § 614.1(2A)(a) (emphasis added). Unlike a statute of limitations, the period established in section 614.1(2A)(u) does not run from the accrual of the plaintiffs claim; rather, it runs from the date the product was first purchased or installed for use. Id. Thus, “the mere passage of time can prevent a legal right from ever arising.” Bob McKiness Excavating, 507 N.W.2d at 408. Section 614.1(2A)(a) is, therefore, a statute of repose.

Before we consider the extension statute for minors, we make one additional observation. As noted above, section 614.1 generally sets forth the time periods in which suits must be brought “after their causes accrue ... except when otherwise specially declared-” Iowa Code § 614.1 (emphasis added). Because the statutes of repose set forth in section 614.1 have the effect of barring a claim before it accrues, statutes of repose are periods “otherwise specially declared” that operate as an exception to the statutes of limitation that commence upon accrual of the claim.

Armed with an understanding of the nature of section 614.1(2A), we now turn to an examination of section 614.8(2). The plaintiff claims this statute extends the fifteen-year statute of repose for products claims asserted by minors. Section 614.8 provides in relevant part:

Except as provided in section 614.1, subsection 9, the times limited for actions in this chapter, except those brought for penalties and forfeitures, are extended in favor of minors, so that they shall have one year from and after attainment of majority within which to commence an action.

Iowa Code § 614.8(2). This statute too operates as a “specially declared” exception to the statutes of limitation otherwise applicable to actions filed by minors. Kohrt, 344 N.W.2d at 247.

Although we have no legislative history that reflects the general assembly’s intent in adopting this statute, it is a common provision in statutory law. Generally, the purpose of such statutes “is to protect the legal rights of those who are unable to assert their own rights and to mitigate the difficulties of preparing and maintaining a civil suit while the plaintiff is under a disability.” 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 218, at 591.

C. Contentions of -parties. GM argues that section 614.8(2) is not applicable to statutes of repose such as section 614.1(2A). The plaintiff responds that the applicability of section 614.8(2) does not depend on whether the time period at issue is one of limitation or one of repose. To resolve this dispute, we turn initially to the language of the statute.

By its own terms, section 614.8(2) extends “the times limited for actions.” Iowa Code § 614.8(2) (emphasis added). This language appears to be referring to a statute of limitations, i.e., a statute that sets the time limit for filing an action. One could argue that had the legislature intended this extension to apply to statutes of repose, which limit the time within which claims can arise, it would have referred to the times limited for actions and claims. Interpreting section 614.8(2) as referring only to statutes of limitation is also consistent with our cases that hold a limitations period will be extended only when the disability exists when the cause of action accrues. See In re Estate of Hoenig, 230 Iowa 718, 725, 298 N.W. 887, 891 (1941) (interpreting predecessor statute using nearly identical language); Roelefsen v. City of Pella, 121 Iowa 153, 155, 96 N.W. 738, 739 (1903) (same). This focus on the accrual of the cause of action is irrelevant to a statute of repose, which runs without regard to the accrual of the claim.

Nonetheless, we note some ambiguity arises when the statute is considered in the context of chapter 614. First of all, the legislature itself has not expressly distinguished statutes of limitation from statutes of repose, and has lumped them together in section 614.1. Perhaps, therefore, it did not intend to distinguish between them for purposes of the extension period for minors. On the other hand, as noted earlier, both section 614.8(2) and section 614.1(2A) are “specially declared” exceptions to the otherwise applicable statutes of limitation. It would be somewhat unusual for one exception to operate as an exception to another exception. In spite of these conflicting implications, we think any ambiguity with respect to the scope of section 614.8(2) can be resolved by focusing on the legislative purpose underlying this statute and related statutes.

Before we consider the purposes of the relevant statutes, however, we address the plaintiffs contention that our decision in Kohrt is dispositive of the issue before us. In Kohrt, this court applied section 614.8 to a medical malpractice case even though the six-year repose period of section 614.1(9) had expired six years before the minor filed suit. 344 N.W.2d at 246, 247. We did so without any discussion of whether the six-year limit on claims found in section 614.1(9) was a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. Id. The omission of such a discussion was consistent with the fact that, as we have pointed out earlier in this decision, our court did not distinguish statutes of limitation from statutes of repose prior to our 1993 decision in Bob McKiness Excavating.

Given our failure in Kohrt to consider the differences between statutes of repose and statutes of limitation, we do not find Kohrt to be binding or persuasive. We find more helpful our decision in Bob McKiness Excavating, where we reflected on the distinction between statutes of repose and of limitation in deciding whether the discovery rule applied to claims governed by the statute of repose for improvements to real estate. 507 N.W.2d at 408.

In Bob McKiness Excavating, the plaintiff sought damages arising out of the collapse of a pole barn in 1991. Id. at 407. Because the building had been constructed in 1971, the defendant was granted summary judgment on the basis that the fifteen-year period of repose found in section 614.1(11) barred the plaintiffs suit. Id. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that under the discovery rule its claim did not accrue until 1991. Id. We rejected the plaintiffs argument, noting that it failed “to distinguish between an ordinary statute of limitations and a statute of repose.” Id. at 409. Observing that the plaintiffs “cause of action was eliminated before the injury occurred and before the cause of action accrued,” we held that “the plain language of [section 614.1(11) ] evinces a legislative policy decision to close the door after fifteen years on certain claims arising from improvements to real property.” Id. We held, therefore, that the discovery rule did not apply. Id.

The same rationale applies here. Like section 614.1(11), section 614.1(2A)(a) is a statute of repose that reflects “a legislative policy decision to close the door after fifteen years” on certain product claims. As applied here, section 614.1(2A)(a) barred the plaintiffs claim before it accrued. Thus, application of the extension provision of section 614.8(2) would in effect create a cause of action that otherwise would not exist. This result is contrary to the fundamental nature of a statute of repose: “When the period of repose runs before a cause of action accrues, no legal right can thereafter arise.” Bob McKiness Excavating, 507 N.W.2d at 410 (emphasis added). Moreover, it is totally inconsistent with the legislature’s policy decision underlying section 614.1(2A) and nullifies that statute’s operation.

Equally significant, application of section 614.8(2) would not be consistent with the rationale underlying such extension statutes. As noted above, statutes of this type protect the legal rights of a minor who is unable to assert his or her own rights and alleviates the difficulties of preparing and maintaining a civil suit while the plaintiff is a minor. See 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 218, at 591. Extension statutes in essence put a minor on equal footing with an adult, giving the minor an opportunity, when he or she becomes an adult, to assert his or her legal rights. This equalizing effect is unnecessary though in the context of a statute of repose. When a period of repose expires and bars a claim before it accrues (as occurred here), there is nothing a potential claimant — adult or minor — can do to avoid the bar. Thus, the minor suffers no disadvantage by virtue of his minority with respect to a statute of repose because he has no rights that could be asserted in a lawsuit. Thus, any impediment to the assertion of a minor’s rights caused by the minor’s legal disability — an impediment section 614.8(2) is designed to remove — is irrelevant. In addition, application of an extension provision in this context would not put a minor on an equal footing with an adult; it would put the minor in a more advantageous position. That is not the intended purpose of statutes such as section 614.8(2).

We have considered the plaintiffs contention that, had the legislature wanted to exclude section 614.1(2A) from the scope of section 614.8(2), it could have expressly done so. He points out that the legislature did just that with respect to section 614.1(9), enacting an amendment to section 614.8 in 1997 that removed medical malpractice claims from the reach of section 614.8(2). See 1997 Iowa Acts ch. 197, § 7. Given our decision in Kohrt, however, the legislature had no other alternative than to expressly except section 614.1(9) if, in fact, it did not want to extend the repose period for minors bringing medical negligence suits. In addition, we refuse to rely on legislative inaction as indicating a legislative intent that is at odds with the underlying purpose of both section 614.8(2) and section 614.1(2A). That is because “our primary goal is to give statutes a reasonable construction [that] will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of the stab-ute[s].” William C. Mitchell, Ltd. v. Brown, 576 N.W.2d 342, 349 (Iowa 1998).

In summary, we hold section 614.8(2) does not extend the statute of repose found in section 614.1(2A)(a). The district court was correct in so ruling. Moreover, because the allegations of the petition establish that the present suit falls with the scope of section 614.1(2A)(a) and was brought more than fifteen years after-the product in question was first purchased, the plaintiffs claim is barred. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting GM’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CADY, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Marcia STRAND, Guardian of David M. Strand, Ward, Appellant, v. Jessie K. RASMUSSEN, Director of Iowa Department of Human Services, Appellee.
    No. 01-0146.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 17, 2002.

      John W. Kocourek, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Daniel W. Hart, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   CADY, Justice.

The primary issue we face in this appeal is whether an irrevocable trust created with funds received from the settlement of a malpractice action brought on behalf of a mentally retarded individual by his conservator-parents is properly included as an asset under Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-75.9(1) (1997) for the purpose of determining eligibility for state Medicaid benefits. The Department of Human Services (Department) found the trust was an available resource and the amount of the trust exceeded the' applicable resource limits proscribed by federal Medicaid law for determining whether an applicant was sufficiently needy to be entitled to Medicaid benefits by the department. On judicial review, the district court upheld the denial of benefits. On our review, we find the Department correctly applied federal and state law in concluding the trust in this case constituted a prohibited Medicaid qualifying trust. We therefore affirm the decision to cancel Medicaid benefits to David M. Strand.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

David M. Strand (David Jr.) was born to David L. (David Sr.) and Marcia L. Strand on April 8, 1976. David Jr. sustained extensive brain damage during the delivery process. Consequently, he has been profoundly mentally retarded since birth. David Sr. and Marcia filed a malpractice action against the doctor who delivered David Jr. and the hospital. The lawsuit was eventually settled, and a conservator-ship was created to manage the settlement funds. David Sr. and Marcia were appointed as conservators. In 1982 David Sr. and Marcia entered into a trust agreement with First Northwestern Trust Co. of Nebraska to manage the settlement funds. Pursuant to court order, the conservator-ship reimbursed David Sr. and Marcia $14,668.63 for medical expenses they incurred in connection with David Jr.’s permanent disability after his birth.

Under the trust agreement, the bank was named trustee. David Jr. was named beneficiary. David Sr. and Marcia were named grantors and residuary beneficiaries. The trust agreement granted the trustee “sole discretion” to distribute as much of the principal as the trustee believed necessary for David Jr.’s benefit. The only restriction imposed on the trustee’s discretion was that written court approval be obtained prior to expending any funds from the trust.

In 1985 the trust was amended to permit the trustee to distribute up to $2000 each year to David Jr. without court approval. The trustee had to obtain prior court approval if the trustee desired to distribute more than $2000 in any year. This sum was in addition to other payments the trustee was specifically authorized to distribute, such as health insurance policy premiums for David Jr. Furthermore, the trust was amended to authorize the trustee to reimburse David Sr. and Marcia $1658.80 for an Odessey bicycle they purchased for David Jr. In the years that followed, additional disbursements were made for a variety of uses. The purchases ranged from the construction of a swimming pool for the Strands’ home for $11,435.70 on May 24, 1994, to family vacations, furniture, clothing, toys, and other household items. Trust funds were also used for the personal care and support of David Jr.

David Jr. has continuously lived with his parents in the family home since birth. Instead of placing David Jr. in a residential care facility, Marcia has lovingly been his primary caregiver. The Iowa Foundation for Medical Care has certified David Jr. to be in need of long-term care in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR).

Due to his disability, David Jr. receives social security income (SSI). On December 11, 1997, Marcia applied, on behalf of David Jr., for state supplemental assistance under the “Medicaid waiver services” provisions. The department provides Medicaid waiver services to disabled individuals who wish to receive care in their own home instead of in a medical institution. See id. r. 441 — 83 (preamble). These services are referred to as “waiver services” because only those individuals who have received a waiver of the federal requirement of residing in a medical institution are entitled to Medicaid benefits. Id. Moreover, an individual whose primary disability is mental retardation (MR) must satisfy certain eligibility criteria, including financial resource limits delineated under federal law, and demonstrate a need for one of the home and community-based services (HCBS) provided under the state Medicaid MR waiver program. Id. r. 441-83.61 (1998).

In the application for waiver services, Marcia revealed the irrevocable trust as a resource. The Department initially approved Marcia’s application, and David Jr. began receiving Medicaid benefits. The Department assumed the trust funds did not exceed the applicable federal resource limits of $2000 for categorically needy programs such as MR waiver services. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205(c) (1985) (resource limitations). At the time of the Department’s review, the trust principal totaled $304,702.52. Upon learning Marcia planned to build a HCBS home with trust funds to accommodate David Jr.’s disability, however, the Department further investigated the trust agreement. The Department subsequently determined the entire trust corpus was a resource that could be made available to David Jr. at any time by the trustee. Because $304,702.52 far exceeded the eligibility resource limits of $2000, the Department deemed David Jr. ineligible for state Medicaid benefits. The Department then canceled David Jr.’s Medicaid benefits for MR waiver services, effective March 1,1999.

Marcia timely appealed the Department’s decision. A hearing was later held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ held the irrevocable trust established for David Jr. constituted a Medicaid qualifying trust (MQT) under Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-75.9(1) (1997). Like the Department, the ALJ found the trust agreement provided unfettered discretion to the trustee, resulting in the availability of the entire trust corpus to David Jr. The ALJ also concluded David Jr.’s trust was not exempt from treatment as a MQT. See id. (“Trusts ... established prior to April 7, 1986, solely for the benefit of a mentally retarded person who resides in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded, are exempt.”). The ALJ rejected Marcia’s contention that her home was the functional equivalent of an ICF/MR under the MR waiver services program, thereby entitling her to exempt status. Lastly, the ALJ preserved Marcia’s argument that rule 441-75.9(1) is unconstitutional because it unfairly treats mentally retarded persons residing in an ICF/MR differently from those living at home.

Marcia’s subsequent request for an exception to the state Medicaid regulations pursuant to rule 441-75.23(5)(d) was also denied by the ALJ. See id. r. 441-75.23(5)(d) (An exception exists to the medical assistance eligibility rules if “[t]he denial of eligibility would work an undue hardship as set forth in 75.15(3).”). She then filed a petition for judicial review. In addition to the two issues ruled on by the ALJ, Marcia raised several new issues. For the first time, she claimed the Department was bound by its initial determination that the trust was not a MQT. Additionally, Marcia developed her constitutional challenge in greater detail, specifically raising an Equal Protection Clause violation.

The district court denied the judicial review petition. It found the ALJ correctly applied federal and state law in concluding the trust established with the medical malpractice settlement funds constituted a MQT. Additionally, the court agreed the ICF/MR exemption of rale 441-75.9(1) did not apply. The district court did not address the constitutional or estoppel arguments, and Marcia did not request an enlargement of the ruling.

Marcia appeals. She contends the district court erred in finding rule 441-75.9(1) applied to the trust in this case, and in failing to grant an exemption. Although these issues were raised before and decided by the ALJ and district court, the Department contends Marcia is now advancing arguments different from those raised in the underlying proceedings to support the two issues. Marcia again raises the estoppel and constitutional challenges set forth in the petition for judicial review. However, she is now alleging a Due Process Clause violation as well as an Equal Protection Clause infraction. Because these latter issues were not properly presented below, the Department asserts, they are not preserved for appellate review.

II. Standard of Review.

We review a decision by a district court on a petition for judicial review of an individual’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits for errors at law. See TLC Home Health Care, L.L.C. v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 638 N.W.2d 708, 711 (Iowa 2002); Ahrendsen v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 613 N.W.2d 674, 676 (Iowa 2000). We will uphold the district court’s decision if we find the court properly applied the law. TLC Home Health Care, L.L.C., 638 N.W.2d at 710; Ahrendsen, 613 N.W.2d at 676. In determining whether “our conclusions [are] align[ed] with those of the district court,” we look to the standards of agency review found in Iowa Code section 17A.19(8) (1999). Al-Khattat v. Eng’g & Land Surveying Examining Bd., 644 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 2002). Thus, we will affirm the department’s action as long as it is supported by substantial evidence, and does not involve an arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious decision. Id. Lastly, we accord substantial deference to the interpretation of regulations within the agency’s expertise. Id.; TLC Home Health Care, L.L.C., 638 N.W.2d at 711. This deference is particularly warranted when we are called upon to construe the Medicaid act. Ahern v. Thomas, 248 Conn. 708, 733 A.2d 756, 765 (1999).

III. Preservation of Error.

We must first address the Department’s contention that Marcia failed to preserve error on some of the issues now raised on appeal. It is a well-recognized principle of appellate review that “issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut III, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). Additionally, an issue must generally be presented to the agency to satisfy preservation requirements. Al-Khattat, 644 N.W.2d at 22-23 n. 2; see Ahrendsen, 613 N.W.2d at 676 (“This court’s review is limited to questions considered by the agency.”).

We find the principal issues in this case,whether the trust was a MQT and whether the trust was exempt due to David Jr.’s residence in the functional equivalent of an ICF/MR, were properly preserved for our review. Both of these issues were the foundation of the litigation and were presented to, and addressed by, the administrative agency and the district court.

On the other hand, the estoppel and unconstitutional challenges are not properly before us. Although Marcia raised an estoppel argument in the petition for judicial review, this issue was not raised before the agency or addressed by the district court in its ruling. Likewise, Marcia raised the equal protection issue before the agency and district court, but the district court did not address the issue in its ruling. Additionally, this appeal marks the first time Marcia raised a Due Process Clause violation. Because the district court failed to rule on the estoppel and constitutional challenges, Marcia should have requested the district court enlarge its factual findings and legal conclusions. Al-Khattat, 644 N.W.2d at 22-23 n. 2; Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537. The estoppel argument, as well as the equal protection and due process issues, have not been preserved.

IV. Eligibility for Medicaid Benefits.

The eligibility of an applicant for public assistance benefits who is the beneficiary of an irrevocable trust has been debated in the law for some time. The source of the dispute relates to the needs-based test for Medicaid eligibility, which means Medicaid coverage is denied if an applicant has assets that exceed a certain level. Ronney v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 210 Mich.App. 312, 532 N.W.2d 910, 912 (1995). Prior to 1986, an irrevocable trust was not considered to be an asset in determining whether an applicant was sufficiently needy to qualify for Medicaid benefits. See id. Yet, Congress and the states participating in the joint federal-state Medicaid program began to realize that many individuals with irrevocable trusts that otherwise would have made them ineligible for public assistance were receiving Medicaid benefits. They learned that many individuals confronted with escalating health care expenses and a corresponding depletion of personal assets were taking advantage of the trust gap in the Medicaid act by establishing trust funds to shield their own assets, commonly referred to as “self-settled trusts.” Cohen v. Comm’r of Div. of Med. Assistance, 423 Mass. 399, 668 N.E.2d 769, 771 (1996). As a result, these individuals were permitted “to have [their] cake and eat it too,” at the expense of those who were truly unable to financially care for themselves. Id. at 772; see Lebow v. Comm’r of Div. of Med. Assistance, 433 Mass. 171, 740 N.E.2d 978, 980 (2001) (referencing espoused purpose of 1986 federal Medicaid amendments, as stated by the founding members of the bill, to stop “ ‘affluent individuals ... [from] diverting scarce Federal and State resources from low-income elderly and disabled individuals ’ ” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); Allen v. Wessman, 542 N.W.2d 748, 753-54 (N.D.1996) (discussing overriding purpose of the Medicaid amendments).

In 1986, Congress attempted to close the “loophole” in the federal Medicaid act by promulgating provisions prohibiting individuals with considerable means from utilizing the law of trusts to secure eligibility for public welfare benefits. Lebow, 740 N.E.2d at 980; Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 772; Cook v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 225 Mich.App. 318, 570 N.W.2d 684, 685 (1997); Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913-14; Allen, 542 N.W.2d at 754; 570 N.W.2d at 685; see Ramey v. Reinertson, 268 F.3d 955, 961 (10th Cir.2001). The amendment created an exception to general trust law by including certain trusts with an individual’s assets for the purpose of determining whether an applicant’s resource level exceeded the maximum -limits. Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 685; Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 912. These prohibitive trusts were called Medicaid qualifying trusts. The statute defined these trusts, in pertinent part, as follows:

[A] “medicaid qualifying trust” is a trust, or similar legal device, established (other than by will) by an individual (or an individual’s spouse) under which the individual may be the beneficiary of all or part of the payments from the trust and the distribution of such payments is determined by one or more trustees who are permitted to exercise any discretion with respect to the distribution to the individual.

42 U.S.C. § 1396a(k)(2) (1986). However, the amendment explicitly exempted trusts established before April 7, 1986 “solely for the benefit of a mentally retarded individual who resides in an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.” Martin v. Kansas Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 26 Kan.App.2d 511, 988 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1999) (citing Pub.L. No. 99-509, § 9435(c), 100 Stat.2070); accord Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913. The underlying purpose of the amendment was to preserve the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program by ensuring those receiving benefits were in fact impoverished and were not instead shielding assets that should be used to purchase health care services. See Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913-14; Allen, 542 N.W.2d at 754.

Notwithstanding, Congress repealed section 1396a(k) in 1993 and substituted even tighter restrictions by enacting section 1396p(d). See 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d) (1993); Ramey, 268 F.3d at 961; Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 685. The 1993 amendments expanded the types of trusts that could be considered to preclude applicants from Medicaid eligibility. Furthermore, section 1396p(d) clarified the definition of an “individual” under the Medicaid act when determining who established a trust. That subsection provided, in pertinent part:

(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, an individual shall be considered to have established a trust if assets of the individual were used to form all or part of the corpus of the trust and if any of the following individuals established such trust other than by will:
(i) The individual.
(ii) The individual’s spouse.
(iii) A person, including a court or administrative body, with legal authority to act in place of or on behalf of the individual or the individual’s spouse.

42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, if a conservator or other representative of an individual establishes a trust with an individual’s assets, the individual is considered to have formed the trust. See id. § 1396p(d)(2)(A)(in). Lastly, Congress specifically stated this amendment to the federal Medicaid provisions only applies to trusts established after the effective date of the enactment, i.e., August 10, 1993. Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 773 (citing Pub.L. No. 103-66, § 13611(e)(2)(C), 107 Stat. 627 (1993)).

Against this backdrop, we turn to consider our state law governing Medicaid benefits, and its relationship to the federal provisions. Iowa’s medical assistance act is found in Iowa Code chapter 249A. Section 249A.4 directs the department director to promulgate rules and policies implementing the medical assistance act. Torner, 399 N.W.2d at 384. In accordance with this mandate, the director established rules governing an individual’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. See id.

The Iowa administrative rules essentially follow the 1986 and 1993 federal amend-mente. Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-75.9(1) embodies the 1986 definition of MQT, and also delineates the exemption for those trusts established before April 7, 1986 for mentally retarded persons residing in an ICF/MR. However, rule 441-75.9(1) expressly limits the application of this rule to trusts established on or before August 10, 1998. The 1993 amendment is found in Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-75.24 and only applies to trusts established after August 10, 1993. The provisions of rule 441-75.24 are nearly identical to those of section 1396p(d). Because these provisions apply only to trusts created after August 10, 1993, we confine our review to consideration of the 1986 federal amendment and rule 441-75.9.

Although Marcia concedes rule 441-75.24 does not apply to this case, she claims rule 441-75.9 does not apply either because the 1986 amendment it is based upon was repealed when Congress enacted section 1396p(d). In essence, Marcia contends the repeal by Congress in 1993 and the reenactment of a new statute means there is no statute governing trusts created prior to 1993, which renders the Iowa regulation invalid as inconsistent with the federal requirements.

We have previously held that “[t]he simultaneous repeal and reenactment of all or part of a legislative act” is a completely different situation than a mere repeal. State ex rel. Iowa Air Pollution Control Comm’n v. City of Winterset, 219 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Iowa 1974). In fact,

‘Where a statute is repealed by a new statute which relates to the same subject matter, and which re-enacts substantially the provisions of the earlier statute, and the repeal and re-enactment occur simultaneously, the provisions of the original statute which are re-enacted in the new statute are not interrupted in their operation by the so-called repeal; they are regarded as having been continuously in force from the date they were originally enacted.”

Id. (quotation omitted). Applying this principle, we conclude the 1986 amendment remains in effect for trusts created before August 10, 1993, and our statutory law governing such trusts is therefore not inconsistent with federal law.

The overwhelming majority of states that have considered this issue have reached the same result. See, e.g., Ramey, 268 F.3d at 961-62 (“Congress intended that § 1396a(k) be applied to all trusts established on or before August 10, 1993 ....”); Ahern, 733 A.2d at 765-66 (“[T]his case does not involve ... the trust treatment provisions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d) of the medicaid act,” but the provisions of 42 U.S.C. [§ ] 1396a(k)(l).); Williams v. Kansas Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 258 Kan. 161, 899 P.2d 452, 456 (1995) (“Th[e] statute was repealed in 1993, but it applies to this case.”); Martin, 988 P.2d at 1219 (“42 U.S.C. § 1396a(k) (1988) applies to trusts established on or before the enactment of the [1993 améndment].”); Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 773 n. 14 (“[T]he evident intention of Congress in 1993 was to supersede the 1986 MQT statute for trusts created after August 10, 1993, by a more stringent provision, not to loosen eligibility requirements for previous trusts.” (Emphasis added.)); Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 685 (“Congress intended that the Medicaid laws established in 1986 ... are [to continue] to be applied to all trusts established on or before August , 10, 1993 ....”). Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency charged with administering the Medicaid program, has indicated the 1986 amendment still applies to trusts created prior to August 10, 1993. See Ramey, 268 F.3d at 962 (referencing Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, State Medicaid Manual § 3257 (Nov.1995)); Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 686 (same). Moreover, a contrary holding would contravene the purpose of the MQT law to prevent individuals with sufficient funds from becoming eligible for Medicaid benefits by hiding their resources in self-settled trusts. Clearly, Congress could not have intended to eliminate the eligibility requirements for trusts created before 1993 when it enacted section 1396p(d), Ramey, 268 F.3d at 961; Martin, 988 P.2d at 1219; Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 773 n. 14; Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 686, especially when the 1993 amendments tightened, rather than loosened, the loophole. If we found otherwise, we would be interpreting the statute to render an absurd result. Consequently, the only rational conclusion is that Congress intended the 1986 MQT provisions to continue to apply to pre-August 10, 1993 trusts. Cook, 570 N.W.2d at 686.

Having found rule 441-75.9 applies to this case, we must next determine whether the trust constitutes a MQT that would render David Jr. ineligible for Medicaid benefits. Marcia argues the trust in this case was not a MQT because it was established by them, not David Jr. A MQT is a trust established by a person under which the person is the beneficiary of payments from the trust. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-75.9(1). Yet, the person who furnishes the consideration for the trust is deemed to have established the trust, even if the trust was actually created, in form, by someone else. Forsyth v. Rowe, 226 Conn. 818, 629 A.2d 379, 384 (1993); Williams, 899 P.2d at 456; Masterson v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 969 S.W.2d 746, 748 n. 4 (Mo.1998); In re Lennon, 294 N.J.Super. 303, 683 A.2d 239, 241 (Ch.Div.1996). Clearly, the term “person” necessarily includes “a person acting as an individual’s legal representative where the individual is incapable of acting on his or her own.” Williams, 899 P.2d at 456; accord Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913. Thus, a trust established by an individual beneficiary’s legal conservator on behalf of the individual with the individual’s assets is deemed the individual’s trust. See Forsyth, 629 A.2d at 384-85; Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(2)(A)(iii) (stating an individual is considered to have established a trust if a legal representative acting on behalf, of the individual funded the trust with the -individual’s assets); Iowa " Admin. Code r. 441-75.24(l)(a) (same). A contrary interpretation would create an absurd result by permitting guardians and others acting on behalf of an individual to do what the law prevents the actual individual from doing himself or herself. In re Lennon, 683 A.2d at 242; see Forsyth, 629 A.2d at 385 (recognizing the potential unfairness of this position); Williams, 899 P.2d at 457 (same); Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 914 (same).

We conclude the trust was established by David Jr. and therefore constitutes a MQT. See Forsyth, 629 A.2d at 384; Williams, 899 P.2d at 456; Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913. As David Jr.’s conservator, Marcia was acting on behalf of David Jr. in creating the trust for his benefit. Although Marcia argues otherwise, the trust was funded solely with proceeds from the settlement of David Jr.’s medical malpractice claim. David Sr. and Marcia were reimbursed by the conservatorship for their medical expenses, but the remaining funds invested in the trust belonged entirely to David Jr. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that the trust was created with David Jr.’s assets.

However, our analysis does not end here. We must next determine the amount of funds available to David Jr. under the trust agreement. The department only considers resources in excess of the $2000 federal eligibility requirement that are “available” to an applicant under the MQT when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-75.9(2); see Williams, 899 P.2d at 455; Martin, 988 P.2d at 1219.

Both trust income and principal are “available” resources. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-75.9(2). In evaluating the availability of the principal, the department considers “the maximum amount that may be permitted under the terms of the trust assuming the full exercise of discretion by the trustee .... ” Id. r. 441-75.9(2) (emphasis added). Thus, the maximum amount capable of distribution under a trust is deemed an available resource to the beneficiary, regardless of whether the trustee actually exercises his or her discretion. See Forsyth, 629 A.2d at 386; Lebow, 740 N.E.2d at 982; Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 777; In re Lennon, 683 A.2d.at 241. In short, “if there is any state of affairs, at any time during the operation of the trust, that would permit the trustee to distribute trust assets to the [beneficiary], those assets will count in calculating ... Medicaid eligibility.” Lebow, 740 N.E.2d at 983.

We therefore disregard the limitation on the trustee’s discretion in this case to obtaining prior court approval See Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 783. Accordingly, we conclude the entire trust corpus of $304,702.52 is an available resource to David Jr. Consequently, the trust exceeds the $2000 resource cap and precludes David Jr. from receiving Medicaid benefits.

Alternatively, Marcia contends the trust falls within the exemption of rule 441-75.9(1) for trusts created before April 7, 1986, for mentally retarded children residing in an ICF/MR. Although the trust was created in 1982, David was not, and has never, resided in an ICF/MR. Nevertheless, Marcia contends the exemption should apply because their family home is the functional equivalent of an ICF/MR. .Marcia bases this argument on the Medicaid MR waiver services provisions of rule 441-83, which permit the provision of Medicaid benefits to certain mentally retarded individuals residing at home instead of a residential care facility. Because state Medicaid provisions deem their home to be an ICF/MR for MR waiver services, Marcia contends, so should we for purposes of the MQT provisions.

We decline to extend the exemption of rule 441-75.9(1) for several reasons. First, we can find no provision in rule 441-83 referring to the “functional equivalent” of an ICF/MR. Thus, we do not know whether the department does in fact consider homes receiving MR waiver services as the functional equivalent of an ICF/MR. In fact, the testimony of the department’s Medicaid policy specialist in this case indicated the department believes otherwise. Specifically, the Medicaid policy specialist testified she did not believe the Strands’ home was the functional equivalent of an ICF/MR because if it was an ICF/MR, HCBS would be unnecessary. The purpose of HCBS is to provide services ordinarily provided at an ICF/MR that the family caregiver is unable to offer at home. Moreover, the fact that David Jr. is not required to reside in an ICF/MR to receive MR waiver service benefits does not preempt the MQT provisions. Otherwise, the exemption of rule 441-75.9(2) would be superfluous.

Additionally, the Strands’ home simply does not rise to the level of an ICF/MR. Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-83.60 defines an ICF/MR as:

[A]n [1] institution that is [2] primarily for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of persons who are mentally retarded and provides, [3] in a protected residential setting, [4] ongoing evaluation, planning, 24 hour supervision, coordination and integration of health or related services to help each individual function at the greatest ability and [5] is an approved Medicaid vendor.

The federal statute employs a similar, but more detailed, explanation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(d). Clearly, the Strands’ home cannot satisfy all, or any, of the elements. Accordingly, the claim for an exemption under rule 441-75.9(1) is denied.

We recognize the Strands may not be an affluent family, and may have not acted with the intent to defraud the government in creating the trust in this case. Yet, David Jr. would clearly be ineligible for Medicaid benefits if his funds were not held in trust. See Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 914. The Medicaid program is only available to individuals and families who do not possess adequate funds for basic health services. Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 772. It is “ ‘the payer of last resort.’ ” Allen, 542 N.W.2d at 752 (citation omitted). Families, including the Strands, must spend other available resources first, and when those resources are completely depleted, may apply for Medicaid benefits. See Forsyth, 629 A.2d at 385 n. 12; Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 774; Allen, 542 N.W.2d at 752. Although we commend and admire Marcia for her unending devotion to her son’s support, the result under the statute is clear. The district court properly denied the claim for Medicaid benefits.

V. Conclusion.

We conclude the trust in this case was a MQT under Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-75.9(1). As conservator, Marcia was acting on behalf of David Jr. when they created the trust with his settlement funds. Because the entire trust corpus was available to David Jr., he was ineligible for Medicaid benefits. Furthermore, the trust is not entitled to an exemption from treatment as a MQT. We deem any additional arguments not specifically addressed unpreserved for our review. The district court correctly denied the petition for judicial review.

AFFIRMED.

      . Under Iowa's medical assistance plan for the needy, “an individual whose income exceeds federally prescribed limits is barred from receiving benefits.” Torner by Torner v. State, 399 N.W.2d 381, 383-84 (Iowa 1987) (citing Iowa Code section 249A.3(5)). If Iowa did not follow federal guidelines, it would risk losing full federal reimbursement for payments made under its state Medicaid plan. For example, if state law permitted the payment of benefits to an individual who would not similarly be entitled to benefits under the federal Medicaid statute, the state would be responsible for compensating all of the program benefits received by that particular individual. See id. at 384.

      . David Jr. was also denied benefits under the general medically needy program because of excess resources. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-75.1(35)(⅛)(1). The financial resource limit for a household applying for medically needy benefits is $10,000. However, because the Strands do not specifically raise the issue of entitlement to benefits under the medically needy program in this appeal, we need not address this portion of the Department's decision.

      . In challenging the constitutionality of the rule at the hearing before the ALJ, it appears Marcia was attempting to advance an equal protection violation argument. Specifically, Marcia's attorney told the ALJ he believed "there at least arguably could be a question of ... whether or not Mr. Strand is being treated equally under the privileges and immunity clause of the United States Constitution between himself and those individuals residing in an [ICF].''

      . For a detailed overview of the general origi-nations of the federal-state cooperative Medicaid program, see TLC Home Health Care, L.L.C., 638 N.W.2d at 711-12, and Ahrendsen, 613 N.W.2d at 676-77.

      . In particular, the new restrictions provided:
      (B) In the case of an irrevocable trust—
      (i) if there are any circumstances under which payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of the individual, the portion of the corpus from which, or the income on the corpus from which, payment to the individual could be made shall be considered resources available to the individual ....
      42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(3)(B)(i) (emphasis added).

      . Notwithstanding, Marcia contends the 1986 law does not apply to the trust in this case because Congress did not intend the law to apply retroactively or to trusts created solely for the benefit of disabled children. We find both arguments to be without merit. In promulgating the 1986 amendment, Congress specifically stated that the MQT provisions were to be given retroactive effect. Cohen, 668 N.E.2d at 772 n. 8 (citing report of Committee on Energy and Commerce, H.R.Rep. No. 265, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, at 73 (1985)). Furthermore, we do not believe Congress intended to create a general blanket exemption for trusts created for disabled children’s benefit when it enacted the 1986 amendment. To the contrary, Congress limited the exemption to trusts created for mentally retarded children residing in an ICF/MR. Considering the narrow limits of this exemption, we cannot conclude Congress intended to protect all mentally retarded children. See Ronney, 532 N.W.2d at 913 (Congress carved a narrow exemption, impliedly indicating its intent to include all other trusts within the MQT provisions.). If Congress had so intended, it could have easily said so. See Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Health, 641 N.W.2d 823, 835 (Iowa 2002).
      We also reject Marcia's claim that the trust should not be categorized as a MQT because it was not created with the intention to qualify an otherwise ineligible person for Medicaid benefits. As noted, the overriding purpose of the 1986 and 1993 amendments was to prevent otherwise ineligible individuals from creating self-settled trusts to satisfy federal resource limits. Yet, the actual intent of the settler in establishing the trust is irrelevant to the Department's analysis of an application for benefits. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-75.24(l)(d )(1) ("This rule shall apply without regard to: (1) The purposes for which a trust is established.”); accord Lebow, 740 N.E.2d at 980 ("The statute applies ... whether the trust was established for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid benefits."). Furthermore, we find the trust was arguably created for the purpose of preserving David Jr.'s eligibility for public assistance. In Marcia's testimony before the ALJ, she stated she believed David Jr.'s eligibility status would remain intact despite the establishment of the trust. The petition for judicial review also specifically provided that "it was the intention of the creators of said trust to provide the maximum benefits ... which would not preclude his qualifying for Social Security Disability benefits, Medicaid benefits, the Mentally Retarded Waiver programs ....” Lastly, Marcia's reliance on section 1396p(c)(2)(C) in forming this argument is misplaced. This section regards the transfer of assets for less than fair market value, which is not involved in this case.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Shawn Patrick PINK, Appellant.
    No. 00-1123.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 17, 2002.
    Matthew S. Sheeley of Parrish, Kruide-nier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery & Boles, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Thompson, County Attorney, and Anthony H. Janney, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendant, Shawn Pink, from judgment and sentence entered upon his convictions for third-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI), interference with official acts, and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. The only question is whether the trial court should have sustained a pretrial motion to suppress evidence bearing on the OWI charge. We granted the State’s application for further review to consider its challenge to the court of appeals’ decision that an officer’s warrantless entry into Pink’s residence (following Pink’s refusal to heed the officer’s direction to stop) rendered the evidence of intoxication obtained there inadmissible. We now vacate the court of appeals’ decision and affirm defendant’s convictions.

I. Our review of the facts is de novo. State v. Countryman, 572 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Iowa 1997).

Authorities had been alerted by a citizen after Pink followed a carload of teenagers to a residence in Vinton, Iowa, and caused a disturbance there. The teenagers reported Pink had been driving erratically with his bright lights on, and they believed he had been drinking. A police dispatcher received the call and advised deputy John Wayne Austin that Pink was the owner of the pickup involved and that Pink’s home was approximately “a mile and a half south of the intersection of highway 218 and highway 30 in Benton County.” Austin drove to that intersection and observed Pink’s vehicle proceed across the intersection and southward toward his home.

Austin activated his red lights and followed Pink’s vehicle, which was a half-mile ahead and speeding up considerably. Austin was unable to close the distance between them even when driving seventy miles per hour. The officer then turned on his white sweeping light to get Pink’s attention, but Pink still did not slow down before reaching his driveway where he parked and left his vehicle. Austin pulled into the driveway just as Pink approached a screened-in porch area of his home. Austin called, “Stop. I want to talk to you.” Pink looked back at him but continued to enter his home. Austin again demanded he stop and was again ignored.

Austin then entered the porch area of the home and knocked on the door leading into the kitchen. Pink’s girlfriend opened the door and Austin told her he needed to talk-to the driver of the vehicle, stating, “I’m coming in there to talk to him myself.” The girlfriend told Austin that Pink was in the bathroom. Austin then stepped into the kitchen and waited for Pink to come out. After approximately twenty minutes Austin told the girlfriend, “I’m going in there after him.” The girlfriend reported this to Pink who shortly emerged from the bathroom.

In the challenged evidence, Austin testified the odor of alcohol on Pink’s breath was strong and immediately noticeable. Pink’s speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot and watery. Austin asked him whether he had been drinking since he entered the house and Pink reported he had not. Pink failed a number of sobriety tests and was placed under arrest.

II. Based on the foregoing, the State charged Pink with third-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1999), interference with official acts in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1, and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle in violation of Iowa Code section 321.324. He was convicted following a trial to the court on a stipulated record. His appeal stands or falls on his motion to suppress. If it was properly overruled, there was ample evidence to support the conviction. If -it should have been sustained, the appeal must be reversed. We think the ruling was correct.

III. The facts here closely resemble those in State v. Legg, 633 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2001), in which we held a warrant-less search in an attached garage — a curti-lage of defendant’s home — by an officer in hot pursuit did not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Legg, as in the case before us, the defendant speeded up her car while the officer pursued her vehicle with lights activated. We held this gave the officer reasonable grounds to arrest her for the crime of interference with official acts under Iowa Code section 719.1. Legg, 633 N.W.2d at 772. A difference is that the officer in Legg personally observed the initial traffic violation (running a stop sign) whereas Austin relied on a citizen’s observance of Pink’s violation. The distinction is not controlling. State v. Walshire, 634 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Iowa 2001) (officer’s hot pursuit triggered by informant who observed drunk driver). As in Legg, the intrusion here was peaceful and limited “to that which was necessary to allow the officer to speak with” the defendant. See Legg, 633 N.W.2d at 773.

The district court correctly found no Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression of the evidence of Pink’s intoxication. We therefore vacate the contrary decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district court’s judgment in its entirety.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

All justices concur except STREIT, J., who takes no part.


text:
    MEREDITH OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF RIGHT OF WAY, Appellee.
    No. 01-0741.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 17, 2002.

      Michael P. Mallaney and Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David A. Ferree, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Carolyn J. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   CADY, Justice.

Meredith Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Meredith) appeals from a decision by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Department) revoking two permits for outdoor advertising signs located more than 660 feet from an interstate highway right-of-way. The Department found the two signs had been reconstructed or modified without first obtaining new permits from the department of transportation in violation of Iowa Administrative Code rule 761-117.6(5) (1999). Meredith contended the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority under Iowa Code chapter 306C (1999) in relying on rule 761 — 117.6(5) to cancel the permits. On judicial review, the district court upheld the Department’s decision. On our review, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that rule 761— 117.6(5) was a valid exercise of the Department’s rulemaking authority. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Meredith is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising. In 1993, it purchased two signs or billboards from Montgomery Signs, Inc. The signs are located along Interstate 35 North in an agricultural zone, more than 660 feet from the interstate right-of-way. They were erected pri- or to July 1, 1972, when the Iowa legislature enacted the comprehensive Junkyard Beautification and Billboard Control Act of chapter 306C.

One sign is located in Story County. At the time the original owners applied for the requisite provisional permit, the sign had a wooden face eight feet above ground level, supported by five posts. The face was sixteen feet in height and sixty feet in width. After Meredith purchased the sign, it added four support posts, enlarged the dimensions to eighteen feet by sixty feet, and increased the height above ground level to fourteen feet. Meredith did not apply for a new permit with the Department prior to implementing these changes.

The second sign is located in Hamilton County. The specifications of the sign listed in the application for the provisional permit mirrored those listed for the Story County sign. A severe windstorm extensively damaged the Hamilton County sign in 1998. Meredith subsequently repaired the sign. In doing so, it added six support posts, plywood for the face, and increased the dimensions to eighteen feet by sixty feet. It also raised the sign fourteen feet above ground level. Meredith did not apply for a permit before repairing this sign.

After conducting several field checks on the two signs, the Department determined the signs were improperly reconstructed or modified without a permit in violation of Iowa Code section 306C.19 and Iowa Administrative Code rule 761 — 117.6(5). On April 15, 1999, the Department notified Meredith it was canceling the two permits.

Meredith appealed. The Department requested a contested case hearing pursuant to rule 761 — 13.3(1). Following the hearing, an administrative law judge issued a written decision overruling the Department’s revocation. See id. r. 761— 13.6. The administrative law judge invalidated the rule relied upon by the Department after finding chapter 306C did not expressly delegate rulemaking authority to the Department for outdoor advertising devices beyond 660 feet from a highway right-of-way.

The Department appealed. Two days following the issuance of the decision by the administrative law judge, the Department served notice of appeal on Steven B. Westvold. Westvold was the beautification administrator of the department’s office of right of way division, and was responsible for administering the department’s outdoor advertising device program. He was authorized to accept service of a notice of appeal regarding a permit revocation of an outdoor advertising device on behalf of the director of the department’s office of right of way. Westvold promptly forwarded the notice of appeal to the director of the department of transportation. See id. r. 761— 13.7(4) (notice of appeal must be forwarded to department director).

Meredith moved to dismiss the intra-agency appeal. It contended the Department should have served the notice of appeal on William E. McGuire, the acting director of the department’s office of right of way. See id. r. 761 — 13.7(3) (Appeal must be filed with the “director of the office or division which administers the matter being contested.” (Emphasis added.)). Meredith argued the appeal was required to be dismissed for lack of compliance with the administrative procedural rules and for failure to timely file an intra-agency appeal.

The reviewing officer denied Meredith’s motion to dismiss. Additionally, the officer reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and reinstated the Department’s decision to revoke the two permits. The officer determined several sections of the Iowa Code authorized the Department to regulate outdoor advertising devices under chapter 306C.

Meredith petitioned for judicial review. It raised three issues: (1) improper service, (2) lack of rulemaking authority, and (3) unconstitutionality of rule 761— 117.6(5). The district court denied Meredith’s first two claims on grounds similar to those relied on by the reviewing officer. Although the court found Meredith had waived the constitutional challenge, it deemed the argument without merit.

Meredith appeals. It reasserts the same three issues presented to the district court in the judicial review proceedings.

II. Standard of Review.

Our review of a district court’s decision on judicial review is for errors at law. Al Khattat v. Eng’g & Land Surveying Examining Bd., 644 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 2002). We are guided by the standards of section 17A.19(8) in determining whether the district court applied the law correctly. Id. As section 17A.19(8) explains, we uphold the action of the agency as long as it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the agency did not act capriciously, unreasonably, or arbitrarily. Id. We consider the record before both the agency and the district court when reviewing the promulgation of an administrative rule. Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 334 N.W.2d 748, 751 (Iowa 1983). In doing so, we defer to the agency’s interpretation if the rule falls within an area of the agency’s expertise. Al-Khattat, 644 N.W.2d at 23.

III. Service of Notice of Appeal.

We first address Meredith’s claim that the Department improperly served the notice of appeal. If we agree with this contention, the reviewing officer had no jurisdiction over the intra-agency appeal, and our analysis would end here. Contrary to Meredith’s belief, we conclude the Department properly effectuated service of process under department regulations.

Iowa Administrative Code rule 761— 13.7 governs agency appeals of the department’s decisions. Specifically, if a person wishes to appeal the decision of an administrative law judge to a reviewing officer, a written appeal must be submitted to “the director of the office or division which administers the matter being contested” within twenty days of the decision. Id. r. 761—13.7(3).

Meredith first contends rule 761— 117.2(2) directs all appeals of decisions involving permit revocations to be filed with the director of the department’s office of right of way. Yet, a review of this rule reveals that it does not pertain to appeals, but simply informs those who wish to contact the department about general matters of the proper address to do so. See id. r. 761—117.2(2) (“Inquiries, requests for forms, and applications regarding this chapter shall be directed to Advertising-Control Section, Office of Right of Way....” (Emphasis added.)).

On the other hand, rule 761— 13.7(3) specifically applies to appeals. It directs the service of notice on “the director of the office or division which administers the matter ” involved in the appeal. (Emphasis added.) As beautification administrator, Westvold was responsible for overseeing the highway beautification program, which was also located within the office of right of way. Meredith’s permits were revoked for failing to comply with the regulations of the beautification act. Thus, the Department could have reasonably concluded West-void was the proper party to serve under rule 761 — 13.7(3).

Even if the Department was required to serve McGuire in his capacity as department director under the rule, we still find service was properly effectuated. We have long recognized the general rule that notice to an agent is notice to a principal if the agent was acting within his duties in accepting service. See Warburton v. Lauman, 2 Greene 420, 424, 1850 WL 140, at *3 (Iowa 1850) (“His acts while within the sphere of his agency were the acts of his principals. Notice to him was notice to .those for whom he was acting.”); see also Tonelli v. United States, 60 F.3d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1995) (“[N]otice to an agent is effective if the agent has a duty to receive that knowledge and report it to the principal.”); Vermeer v. Sneller, 190 N.W.2d 389, 393 (Iowa 1971) (“[T]he principal is chargeable with ... notice to his agent received while the agent is acting as such within the scope of his authority... .”). Thus, if notice must be delivered to a particular officer listed by statute, notice to a designated representative of the officer should normally be sufficient. Vermeer, 190 N.W.2d at 394. Clearly, the record demonstrated Westvold was acting as an authorized agent of the department in accepting service of the notice of appeal. See Warburton, 2 Greene at 424, 1850 WL 140, at *3. Consequently, we impute the knowledge of notice to McGuire. See Vermeer, 190 N.W.2d at 393.

In so concluding, we do not believe we are offending general principles of fairness. See id. at 395. Meredith does not contend it was prejudiced or deprived of the ability to adequately conduct an investigation. See id. at 394. Nor would we seriously entertain such a contention. The authority to receive notice is a mere ministerial task that can easily be delegated to an ■ agent without contravening the concept of fairness. Id.

Furthermore, we believe this holding furthers the purpose of the department’s appeal procedures to provide an orderly and efficient procedure for filing and processing appeals, as well as to ensure all relevant parties receive proper notice. See id. (we must keep in mind the objective of the notice provisions). Notice was forwarded to and received by the department director pursuant to rule 761— 13.7(4). We have a long-standing tradition of requiring only substantial compliance with a statutory notice provision, particularly when a strict construction would not further the regulation’s purpose. See Vermeer, 190 N.W.2d at 394. Accordingly, we conclude service on a designated agent under the facts of this case complies with rule 761—13.7(3).

IV. Overview of Outdoor Advertising Device Regulation.

In 1972 the Iowa legislature enacted chapter 306C in response to the federal Highway Beautification Act, 23 U.S.C. § 131 (1965), which governed outdoor advertising signs along highways. In promulgating section 131, Congress sought to preserve the aesthetic natural beauty of our nation’s landscapes for the traveling public. Id. § 131(a). Furthermore, by regulating “the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs,” Congress intended “to protect the public investment in such highways[ ][and] to promote the safety and recreational value of public travel.” Id. Our legislature possessed similar intent in creating our own advertising sign regulation, but most likely also had financial concerns in mind. See Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Neb.-Iowa Supply Co., 272 N.W.2d 6, 13 (Iowa 1978), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Grossman v. McCreary, 373 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 1985). The failure of a state to adopt statutory standards resembling the federal mandates of the Highway Beautification Act results in the loss of a percentage of the apportionment of federal highway funds ordinarily received by a particular state. See 42 U.S.C. § 131(b) (“shall be reduced by amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which would otherwise be apportioned to such State”); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 233(a), at 82 (1991).

In general, the Highway Beautification Act prohibits advertising signs within a specified distance from the highway right-of-way, in addition to signs outside of the specified distance that are visible from the main traveled way of the highway system and were constructed for the purpose of conveying an advertising message to the general public. 40 C.J.S. Highways § 233(b), at 82. Although a state may impose more stringent limitations than those delineated in the federal highway act, a state may not establish more lenient restrictions. See id. § 233(a), at 82.

. Iowa has two separate statutes regulating the erection and maintenance of advertising billboards. Chapter 306B concerns only signs located within 660 feet of an interstate highway’s right-of-way, while chapter 306C regulates all advertising signs. Because the two signs in this case are more than 660 feet from the right-of-way, chapter 306C guides our analysis.

Section 306C.12 prohibits the construction and reconstruction of an advertising device located more than 660 feet from the highway right-of-way “if it is visible from the main-traveled way of any interstate or primary highway.” Before a sign may be constructed, a permit must be obtained from the department. Iowa Code § 306C.12; id. § 306C.18(2); Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.5(5). The permit application must include a description of the proposed location and the sign’s dimensions. Iowa Code § 306C.18(1). However, signs erected prior to the passage of chapter 306C were permitted to legally remain in existence despite their nonconformance to the new rules. Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.5(2). The owners of the “grandfathered” signs were only required to . obtain a provisional permit. Iowa Code § 306C.18(2); Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.6(3)(b). These billboards are commonly referred to as nonconforming signs. Iowa Admin. Code r. 761— 1Í7.1 (“ ‘Nonconforming sign’ means an advertising device that was lawfully erected and continues to be lawfully maintained.”); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 240, at 90 (“A ‘nonconforming sign’ is a sign erected in conformance with the law as it existed at the time of its erection which was subsequently not in compliance because of a change in the law.”).

Furthermore, a sign owner must obtain a new permit before it undertakes reconstruction or modification of the existing sign. Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.6(5). Thus, a reconstructed or modified sign is subject to the same regulations as a sign owner seeking an initial permit for the erection of a new sign. Id. r. 761— 117.6(5)(6). A sign is deemed reconstructed if a repair exceeds sixty percent of the total replacement cost. Iowa Code § 306C.10(15). On the other hand, the department has delineated several examples of modifications under the regulations, including changes in dimensions, sign face, and number of support posts. Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.1. Yet, a mere change in advertising message does not constitute a modification. Id. Moreover, a sign owner need not seek a new permit if the change or addition is simply incidental to customary sign maintenance. Id. r. 761 — 117.1. For example, if the owner is merely attempting to maintain the sign in a state of good repair, this is customary maintenance not necessitating a permit. See Iowa Code § 306C.10(7) (“ ‘Erect’ means to construct, reconstruct, build, raise ... [but not] when performed incidental to the customary maintenance of an advertising device.”); id. § 306C.10(11) (“ ‘Maintain ’ means to cause to remain in a state of good repair but does not include reconstruction.”). Noncompliance with the permit provisions results in the revocation of the previously issued permit and mandatory sign removal. Id. § 306C.19; Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.6(5)(c); see Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 272 N.W.2d at 13 (“[U]pon noncompliance with the permit requirements ... the[ ] billboards become subject to removal.”); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 239, at 89 (sign violating permit requirements of governing statutes and applicable regulations promulgated by department is subject to removal and corresponding permit revocation).

Y. Rulemaking Authority under Chapter 306C.

Meredith contends the Department exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule requiring the department to revoke permits granted under chapter 306C when a sign owner reconstructs or modifies a nonconforming' sign without first seeking a new permit. Meredith points to section 306B.3, which specifically grants authority to the department to “promulgate and enforce rules ... governing the erection, maintenance, and frequency of advertising devices within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right of way.” In short, Meredith claims that because there is no similar provision in chapter 306C, the department does not have the authority to implement rules governing signs beyond 660 feet from the right of way.

Although chapter 306C does not in fact expressly grant rulemaking authority, we find that several other statutory sections inherently provide the department with sufficient authority to enact regulations controlling the maintenance of nonconforming signs. Sections 306C.18(3) and 306C.19 require sign owners such as Meredith to follow department rules or be subject to removal. Additional sections provide general authority to the department to adopt such rules deemed necessary to carry out its duties. See Iowa Code § 307.12(9) (duty of department director to enact rules); id. § 307A.2(13) (department must enact rules needed to exercise its powers); see also Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.3 (department regulates advertising signs in accordance with the rules); id. r. 761 — 117.2(1) (these rules apply to all advertising signs visible from highway, subject to exceptions not involved here). Considering these provisions, we conclude the legislature intended to provide the department with the power to fill in any gaps within chapter 306C by enacting administrative rules. See Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co., 334 N.W.2d at 752 (a finding that the department is responsible for implementing rules is consistent with the legislature’s intent); Haesemeyer v. Mosher, 308 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa 1981) (looking to general rulemaking provisions); Peoples’ Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 238 Iowa 1369, 1376, 28 N.W.2d 799, 804 (1947) (referencing general statutory provision empowering commission to adopt any rules necessary to effectuate commission’s purposes).

An agency rule is generally presumed valid unless the party challenging the rule proves “a ‘rational agency’ could not conclude the rule was within its delegated authority.” Milholin v. Vorhies, 320 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Iowa 1982); accord Dunlap Care Ctr. v. Iowa Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 353 N.W.2d 389, 397 (Iowa 1984); Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co., 334 N.W.2d at 751-52. Additionally, the rule must not exceed or limit the scope of the authority granted by the enabling legislation. Smith-Porter v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 590 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999); Denning v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 368 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 1985); Dunlap Care Ctr., 353 N.W.2d at 397; Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co., 334 N.W.2d at 752; Haesemeyer, 308 N.W.2d at 37. Although the ultimate decision concerning the validity of a rule rests with the reviewing court, Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co., 334 N.W.2d at 752, we must accord some respect to the agency’s decision, Dunlap Care Ctr., 353 N.W.2d at 393.

We conclude a rational agency could conclude it was empowered to enact a rule governing the reconstruction or modification of nonconforming signs. In fact, this rule is compatible with federal regulations. Under the federal regulations, nonconforming signs may remain in existence if the signs remain in substantially the same condition as they were in at the time they were initially grandfathered in. See Indep. Stave Co. v. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n, 748 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (citing 23 C.F.R. § 750.707(d)(5) (1987)); State v. World Diversified, Inc., 254 Neb. 307, 576 N.W.2d 198, 202 (1998) (same). The states were explicitly directed to establish their own standards to differentiate a substantial change from customary maintenance. Id. Thus, it is well recognized that a nonconforming sign will lose its protected status if it fails to comply with certain limitations. See Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 272 N.W.2d at 11 (recognizing a nonconforming sign could be removed for subsequent nonconfor-mance); 40 C.J.S. Highways § 239, at 90. Furthermore, section 806C.12 clearly subjects all nonconforming signs to the applicable permit provisions of section 806C.18 and subsequent removal procedures of section 306C.19, in addition to the corresponding regulations administering those, sections. See Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 272 N.W.2d at 10. Moreover, it would be absurd to conclude the legislature intended to permit nonconforming signs to continue in perpetuity. By permitting only customary maintenance, the obvious purpose of the beautification act was to eventually weed out nonconforming signs. See Nat’l Adver. Co. v. Bradshaw, 48 N.C.App. 10, 268 S.E.2d 816, 821 (1980) (“obvious purpose of the statute and regulation is to gradually phase out signs ... which existed at the time of enactment but which tended to harm the public interest and welfare by causing ugliness, distraction, and safety hazards”); see also 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1068, preamble (B) (codified at Iowa Code §§ 306C.1-306C.21 (1973)) (act’s purpose is to preserve scenic beauty of public highways by controlling outdoor advertising signs).

Applying rule 761 — 117.6(5) to the facts of this case, we conclude the two signs in this case were in fact illegally modified. The dimensions, size, and number of posts of both signs had increased. Clearly, this is a modification. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 761 — 117.1. The alterations and additions in this case were too extensive to constitute de minimis changes or a mere continuation of the existing sign. See State, 576 N.W.2d at 203 (changes not constituting customary maintenance). Our conclusion is aligned with the other states that have adopted similar criteria in regulating nonconforming signs. See, e.g., U.S. Outdoor Adver. Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 714 N.E.2d 1244, 1265 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (finding reconstruction resulted in a substantial change to nonconforming sign, where owner added new sign face, and changed dimensions and support posts); Royal Food Sys., Inc. v. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm’n, 876 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (change in advertising message was not a substantial change where structure and support posts remained unchanged); Indep. Stave Co., 748 S.W.2d at 875 (thirty-five percent increase in size constituted a substantial change warranting revocation of nonconforming sign’s legal status); State, 576 N.W.2d at 203 (may remove nonconforming sign if support poles replaced or dimensions and size altered); Nat’l Adver. Co., 268 S.E.2d at 821 (permit revoked when owner replaced poles and face panels after sign incurred more than fifty percent damage from windstorm); Keystone Outdoor Adver. v. Commonwealth, 687 A.2d 47, 49-50 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1996) (revoked nonconforming sign’s permit after owner changed dimensions, added posts, and used more durable materials after sign suffered more than fifty percent damage following a windstorm). But see Dep’t of Transp. v. Keller Dev. Corp., 122 Ill.App.3d 1038, 78 Ill.Dec. 413, 462 N.E.2d 532, 534-35 (1984) (finding replacement of nonconforming sign constituted legal repair, not erection, where sign was completely destroyed by windstorm).

VI. Conclusion.

We conclude the Department did not exceed its rulemaking authority in promulgating rule 761 — 117.6(5) to regulate the reconstruction and modification of nonconforming signs under Iowa Code chapter 306C. The two signs in this case were modified without seeking prior approval from the Department. The district court correctly denied the petition for judicial review.

AFFIRMED.

      . Although Meredith concedes it added the support posts, it contends the current dimensions existed at the time of purchase. However, Meredith failed to review a copy of the provisional permit prior to the purchase. Nevertheless, it is not important to determine the party responsible for changing the dimensions. Moreover, as we later note, the addition of support posts alone necessitates an application for a new permit.

      . We need not determine whether rule 761— 117.6(5) is unconstitutionally vague. In its brief, Meredith merely raised this argument in one sentence at the end of its statement of the case. No arguments, case law, or other authorities were advanced in support of this issue. We therefore find Meredith waived this challenge. Iowa R.App. P. 6.14(l)(c) (“Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”).