Karen M. Hjelmeland, as of the Estate of Jan K. Hjelmeland v. Frank Collins (Acting as Agent for Owners), Connie Collins, Linda Schnetzer, Shirleen King, Lynnette Schnetzer, Linda Merkle, and Jane Estes
15-1901
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Jan Hjelmeland Excavating (Jan) agreed orally with Frank Collins (agent for the Schnetzer owners) to pattern-tile 47 acres; work ran from May 3 to June 10, 2011.
- Hjelmeland billed by tile foot and related materials: total $64,638; Frank paid $30,550, disputed the remainder claiming the parties agreed to $650 per acre (i.e., $30,550 total).
- Jan filed a mechanic’s lien seeking the balance; Frank and the owners counterclaimed for damages from alleged untimely completion (claimed crop loss converting intended corn to soybeans).
- District court found the evidence supported a per-foot billing practice in the trade, credited Hjelmeland’s testimony and expert opinion that the bill was fair, and rejected the $650/acre theory.
- The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no agreed completion date and that wet spring conditions excused timing; it awarded Hjelmeland attorney fees of $39,874.47.
- On appeal the court affirmed the mechanic’s lien amount, the attorney-fee award, and the dismissal of the counterclaim; appellate fees were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper contract price for tiling | Hjelmeland: billing per-foot installed is the industry practice and reflects parties’ intent | Owners/Collins: agreement was $650 per acre for 47 acres | Court: per-foot billing was consistent with trade usage and conduct; $650/acre claim unreasonable; lien amount affirmed |
| Timeliness / counterclaim for crop loss | Hjelmeland: work was timely given unusually wet spring and no agreed completion date | Owners/Collins: tiling should have been completed earlier; they incurred $19,729–24,064 in crop losses | Court: substantial evidence no completion-date term and weather justified schedule; counterclaim dismissed |
| Award of attorney fees to lien claimant | Hjelmeland: requested fees were reasonable for services and results obtained | Owners/Collins: fees excessive and duplicative relative to recovery | Court: district court properly exercised discretion, considered customary factors, and did not abuse discretion in awarding fees |
| Appellate attorney fees | Hjelmeland estate: requested fees on appeal | Owners/Collins: opposed | Court: declined to award appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Flynn Builders, L.C. v. Lande, 814 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 2012) (mechanic’s lien enforcement reviewed de novo as an equity matter)
- Walsh v. Nelson, 622 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa 2001) (contract interpretation focuses on parties’ intent at formation)
- Fausel v. JRJ Enters., Inc., 603 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 1999) (manifestations of intention interpreted in light of circumstances and trade usage)
- Pillsbury Co. v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 752 N.W.2d 430 (Iowa 2008) (rules on contract interpretation and giving weight to principal purpose)
- Baumhoefener Nursery, Inc. v. A & D P’ship, II, 618 N.W.2d 363 (Iowa 2000) (district court’s discretion in awarding attorney fees)
- Landals v. George A. Rolfes Co., 454 N.W.2d 891 (Iowa 1990) (trial court should consider whole picture in fixing a total fee)
- Schaffer v. Frank Moyer Constr., Inc., 628 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2001) (district court is expert on reasonable attorney fees and relevant factors)