David Nebel D/B/A Nebel Electric v. David L. Lott and Julie A. Lott, Dubuque Bank and Trust, and Dubuque City of Housing Services Department
15-2035
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- David Nebel (Nebel Electric) filed a mechanic’s lien in Feb 2012 seeking $9,283.69 for electrical labor/materials on the Lotts’ six-plex rental property and later sued to foreclose the lien.
- The district court granted defendants’ directed verdict, concluding Nebel failed to perfect the lien and awarded defendants $6,870 in attorney fees.
- Nebel’s lien statement listed start and end dates (alleging work through Feb 2, 2012), legal description, and owner mailing address; no written notice to owner was given.
- Evidence showed the contractor’s permit was voided around Dec 2011; the court found nothing showing the last work date was earlier than Nov 18, 2011 (90 days before filing), so written notice under the 2011 statute was not required.
- Nebel had no written contract, provided no breakdown of hours, rates, or who performed what labor; cancelled checks show $20,493 paid to Nebel during the project, receipts indicate about $11,200 in materials.
- The court concluded Nebel met statutory perfection requirements (2011 Code) but failed to prove entitlement to the claimed unpaid labor; the attorney-fee award was reversed because the statute permitting fees did not apply to this non-owner-occupied multiunit rental.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebel perfected the mechanic’s lien | Nebel argued his verified lien statement complied with the controlling statute and was filed within the period avoiding the written-notice requirement | Defendants argued Nebel failed to comply with statutory perfection requirements | Court: Perfection satisfied under Iowa Code §572.8 (2011); notice not required because last work date was within 90 days of filing |
| Whether Nebel proved the amount owed (entitlement to foreclosure) | Nebel contended he was owed $9,283.69 for unpaid labor after accounting for payments and materials | Defendants argued Nebel failed to prove an express contract, hourly rates, hours worked, or adequate breakdown to support the claimed amount | Court: Nebel failed to meet burden of proof; foreclosure denied for lack of proof of reasonable/contractual compensation |
| Which version of the Code governs perfection vs. civil action | Nebel argued 2011 statutes govern perfection because lien filed in 2012 before statutory changes took effect | Defendants relied on later code provisions for attorney-fee authorization in the court action | Court: 2011 Code governs perfection; 2014 Code applies to the 2014 court action on attorney fees |
| Whether defendants were entitled to attorney fees under Iowa Code §572.32 | Nebel argued fees were not authorized because the property is rental, not residential construction as defined | Defendants argued the statute authorized fees as awarded by the district court | Court: Reversed fee award—§572.32 (2014) awards fees to prevailing plaintiffs and to prevailing defendants only for liens on "residential construction"; six-plex rental not covered |
Key Cases Cited
- Giese Constr. Co. v. Randa, 524 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa Ct. App.) (mechanic’s lien actions are equitable; de novo appellate review)
- Sulzberger Excavating, Inc. v. Glass, 351 N.W.2d 188 (Iowa Ct. App.) (claimant bears burden; implied contract/reasonable compensation principles)
- Branstad v. State ex rel. Nat. Res. Comm’n, 871 N.W.2d 291 (Iowa) (attorney fees are statutory exceptions to the American Rule and must be authorized clearly by statute)