*1 substantially out- legitimate might of a have had was not probative violence were weighed danger prejudice unfair dispute this case. issue admission, engendered their Furthermore, assuming alleged even pro- violence were acts domestic JJ., ZAGER, join APPEL and this respect legitimate to a issue bative with dissent. value of acts dispute, probative those outweighed by substantially the dan- to Richards. ger prejudice of unfair of a probative value evidence
“When substantially out- prior act is
defendant’s prejudice danger unfair
weighed by defendant, court must exclude Wilson, 203, 216
it.” State v. (Iowa 2016). Justice Lavorato As Chief STEFANO, Elyse Appellant, DE out, aptly pointed once so balancing has been This test described long of a stand- DOWNTOWN, INC.,
as “the bastion Appellee. modern APTS. protects criminal ing tradition that No. 14-0820. ‘guilt by reputation’ from defendant ” ‘unnecessary And prejudice.’ Supreme Court Iowa. “[bjecause compet- weighing entails 6,May interests, delicate, and must be accommodation with care lest employed needs results sub- prosecutor’s to our
verting principle that is central Otherwise, we' al-
concept fairness.” 404(b) to swal- exceptions
low the rule important rule.
low the (alteration
Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d omitted) (citations (quoting original) Cook, 1000, 1004 States v. 538 F.2d
United Cir.1976)).
(3d ,position a defendant takes
WJien guilty he acted
that he is unless .self-
defense, purpose for only conceivable addressing
admitting other acts evidence unduly tip
his would be scales intent serves no le-
against him. Such evidence not purpose therefore should
gitimate admitted.
Accordingly, I conclude con- evidence alleged other
cerning Richards’s acts been should have
domestic violence probative they because were
admitted n any legitimate disputed issue this they value probative
case and whatever
Christopher S. and Christine Warnock Project, Tenants’. Iowa Boyer E. City, appellant. Hogg and James Affeldt
Robert M. W. Pirnie, P.L.C., Rap- Cedar & Elderkin Holland, ids, City, Joseph and C. appellee.
APPEL, Justice. dispute is a
This case landlord-tenant *4 initially tried as a small claims presents preliminary The case matter. namely, question impression, first an award fees should whether part of considered as the “amount determining for controversy” purposes of jurisdiction of the small claims court. subject jurisdiction, If matter there is important several un- case includes issues Uniform Land- der the Iowa Residential (IURLTA), including Act lord Tenant (1) a landlord enter into whether requires a tenant contract with making the cost of re- to assume premises to pairs necessary maintain the (2) condition, in a fit habitable whether approve refuse to a landlord can sublease upon the refusal of the tenant based maintaining premis- the cost assume condition, (3) es in a fit and habitable may automatically de- whether landlord carpet cleaning for at the con- duct fee (4) term, clusion of the lease whether punitive damages are available statutory in this for willful violation the IURLTA case. (cid:127) a
The landlord rented four-bedroom college to four in the com- home students An munity City. of Iowa exterior door and damaged premises lock to the were door vandalism, third-party requiring re- due fit pair in to maintain a and habit- order premises. the landlord was able When door, damaged properly pro- the land- landlord informed refused allow posed light for sublease in repaired but billed the tenants tenant’s re- lord pay fusal to for pay. The tenants refused the exterior door. As a cost. result, subsequently sought to the tenant the tenants was liable the landlord When during for two summer for rent two apartment sublease the summer months months, approve premises when the was vacant. The the landlord refused dis- found, however, trict court ground on the that the ten- sublease land- repairs ants had for the automatic deduction from the rental failed lord’s deposit carpet cleaning for for penalties nonpayment. violated the assessed still As a IURLTA and that certain late im- pay. tenants refused result, approve posed by improper. the landlord refused the landlord were end, sublease, premises was vacant for the district court De and the awarded last Stefano balance of the de- two months term. $651.54 posit withheld and stat- improperly $200 term, At the conclusion of the lease utory punitive damages. then withheld the tenants’ rental trial, attorneys After De Stefano deposit. The the rental landlord withheld sought fees under the terms the IURL- deposit asserting that tenants separate TA and submitted two fee affida- of repairing the landlord the cost owed supporting vits the fee claims. The door, (2) dis- damaged the tenants incurred *5 attorneys’ trict court awarded failing $1160 for under the lease to penalties fees, the sum in a (3) claimed fee affidavit door, pay damaged timely for the attorney by Boyer. submitted Christine automatically obligated tenants were The district attor- court declined award for of pay cleaning the cost landlord neys’ fees claimed a fee affidavit submit- carpet upon their surrender of by for attorney Christopher ted Warnock premises at of the lease end term $5466. regardless carpet, the condition
and the tenants owed the landlord vari- granted parties appealed, Both and we relatively ous other minor fees costs and discretionary review. For the reasons appeal. no relevance to this follow, part affirm in and reverse we on part the decision of the district court tenants, Stefano, Elyse One De appeal. and part -We affirm tenant’s court, claiming small claims sued part ruling court’s reverse district improperly withheld the rent- re- cross-appeal. the landlord’s We deposit. magistrate al for The held remand verse and the case the district tenant on most and awarded dam- issues court. ages magistrate did The $4720. be- Background
award De Stefano I. Proceed- Facts attorney cause no affidavits were ings. fee filed. appealed to district court.
The landlord July University In four Iowa Stefano, upheld Elyse appeal, Hillary On the district court De students — Block, Meghan magistrate’s Crotty, some but not all of the deci- and Jennifer Con- nelly sion. The district concluded four-bedroom home —rented lease, Downtown, Inc., City under the terms of the the landlord Iowa from Apts. Downtown) charge replace- (Apartments the tenant for the could under written agreement. period ment the exterior door been lease of the lease that had The person persons July July or was from vandalized un- month, per known. The district court also the The rent found collective was $1635 is an alter deposit City call.- Iowa Maintenance paid a rental tenants and the ego Apartments Downtown. rent. one month’s Furthermore, an au- the lease included seventy The lease contained preprinted charge carpet cleaning for at the tomatic featuring many tightly-spaced paragraphs Specifically, conclusion the lease term. para- subparts considerable detail. the lease stated follows: provided, “Tenants graph the lease building throughout are carpets the. apart- for agree all apart- cleaned each time professionally screens, doors, windows, includ- ment occupancy. over Tenants ments turn (including doors random ing exterior unit (effi- charge starting to a agree $95 vandalism).” provid- also acts of (6+ ciency) not to exceed bed- $225 paragraph ed “Unless Landlord rooms) deposit being deducted from responsible for negligent, Tenants professional cleaning expira- at the windows, damages/repairs to the cost of all tion of Lease. doors, walls, screens, carpet, regard- damage such is caused less whether tenants, including The four student De residents, Additionally, or guests others.” Stefano, reg- possession paid took contained estimated the lease $452-$690 monthly rent on a basis the dura- ular replacement of a repair cost lease, including for months tion of-the prehung entry door. failing after July, óf June and Apartments approval receive Downtown’s provided that further The lease for a sublease. perform all City' would re- Maintenance' 25, 2011, August the- written authorization se- On student pairs “unless forwarding pro- It had been Landlord.” stated that whose address cured from [the] “Security charges per vided the landlord received City Maintenance $70 Deposit Apart- 2011”1 from regular hour business hours arid Statement during *6 weekends, following nights detailing Downtown per during and hour ments $90 charges to the rental account: per of one hour service tenants! with a minimum Cleaning: Carpet Cleaning $191.00 Charges: $1,308.45 Rent & Acct: Past Due Fees on Up: Lawn Clean $60.00 (cid:127) (cid:127) 2): (Kitchen, BR Screens Blinds $150.00 (BR 2,4): $99.00 (Bed lawn): Disposal of mattress front Removal & Items $50.00 Tenants (-) $2,138.45
Total Deductions $(503,45) Total Due: inspection. The statement past-due The rent and fees the amount maintenance charges $21p consisted pay-the $1308.45 the tenants to instructed $503.45 2011; $598.46, June the total lawn care in thirty days. on within due the account door; cost for exterior replacement $150 replacement charge door and to timely pay of late for failure for the subsequent from a bur- late fees stemmed door; replacement $349.99, and cost glary that occurred at De Stefano’s resi- refrigerator gasket two and replacing 2010. De and during broken found a June dence October Stefano screens deposit,” opinion but we consider reference to a 1. This follows Iowa Code section 562A.12(3) synonymous. referring "security deposit” to be to as a "rental this police police report investigation filed a not.... re- [I]f the other tenants finding guilty in the of the City Department. party sults the Iowa Police responsible damage, for the burglary had was report stated that the left the then at that time we would be more than damaged and the door exterior doorframe charge person(s) for happy said Downtown was to Apartments lock broken.2 damage. Until on 11. It then the dam- the door October repair called Maintenance, age property incurred to the un- arranged City fall[s] its responsibility of der the the leased ten- group, replace in-house maintenance door, currently At charges you ants. this time still were billed kieked-in and outstanding have an of 598.46 on her roommates. The balance De Stefano and account, your if happen this would repair replacement of the and total cost still $598.46, for the be current when rent Deeember[’]s was which included $818.46 due, it comes will accumulate the stan- replacement door and for four hours $280 charge. late charge, dard Upon receipt of labor. of this one $40.00 a letter De Stefano’s cotenants sent On December De Stefano emailed Apartments dated November 2 to Down- Apartments Downtown indicated that town, contesting charge advising on counsel the tenants would advice damage by any that the was caused paying be for the door and that if police investigation the tenants Apartments back Downtown held their de- tenant,' ongoing. 'The student legal posit they Apart- would take action. apparently letter with the advice of written Downtown, believing apparently ments counsel, paragraph referenced request to be a email be $598.46 agreement lease which stated: “Tenants deposit damage 'taken the tenants’ damages apartment to the agree pay all term, responded by the end the rental screens, doors, windows, including ex- provi- email referred De Stefano to a (including terior acts of unit doors random agreement stating- sion in the vandalism).” said The tenant she believed charges paid immediately needed be provision this lease unconscionable else late fees would accumulate. The and thus unenforceable a court. stated, email bill, you pay do not this late [I]f
Apartments responded $40 Downtown your charge applied will be rental November balance,- which from until account now By signing agreement you the lease of you[r] the end lease term would agree all *7 to an amount addi- additional $820.00 windows, screens, doors, apartment and the balance. tion to door including including exterior unit doors/ ... random acts of 'If the 2011, vandalism. May De Stefano the other and during burgla- door was broken down a sought apartment tenants to sublet their ry, consid- the destruction the door is They for months. summer located the though the subleasing ered' vandalism.... Even their individuals interested' in, damaged during door the Apartments break property rental and contacted tenants, by guest and not it still per a the which agreement, Downtown the lease visitor, stated, falls under the a the o[f] “[T]enants basis shall not sublet ... con- they guest dwelling whether were a known unit without the written length. being burgla- split during 2. The front for door was a result of "kicked in” approximately ry. damage twelve inches around the latch the front door of This rendered deadbolt, damaged and and the frame was as the house unlockable. provid- deposit lease also withheld sent of Landlord.” The amounts from the rental “Only ed, however, whose apartments and the balance De still owed. Stefano standing may in good rental accounts responded asking with an for. email the on All the account sublease. rent/fees deposit characterizing return of and the consents to paid before Landlord must charges against landlord’s account Thus, Apartments a sublease.” Downtown illegal Apartments as and unreasonable. consent to because sublease refused Downtown countered with a letter dated un- rental an tenants’ account carried 8, September asserting deductions paid consisting charges balance deposit complied from the with rental late subsequent door replacement and 562A, chapter authorizes which de- nonpayment. De Stefano and fees for deposit ductions from a rental either for a their were able to other tenants sublet rent or payment tenant’s default property. rental a unit to it had restore condition been 22, Apartments en- June Downtown On in at the tenancy. the commencement of tenants’ rental property tered the without provided The letter a reason each proper notice to conduct an annual mainte- charge any of to remove declined em- City tour. Iowa Maintenance nance charges. further The landlord’s letter re- repaired two screens ployees bent window quested pay tenants balance torn replaced at a cost $150 September the account 25 to avoid refrigerator gasket at cost of $129.99. September future collections action. On total Downtown Apartments added Apartments Depart- Downtown charge of rental the tenants’ $349.99 Litigation ment Collections and sent account, it De eventually part became Rent “Past Due and Fees.” Stefano and other former tenants indi- demanding vidual payment letters later, De A month the other Stefano and on the claimed balance due rental $503.45 Apart- received email from tenants account. containing Downtown move-out ments also
inspection information. email brought On October De Stefano tenants, in let- capital told the bolded and against Apartments claims small action ters, Only Car- “Tenants Need Vacuum request- Downtown.3 De notice Stefano’s Below, pet!” stated, agreed “As Apartments ed Downtown as $5000 be a the lease’s addendum there will court costs. well fees and On ten- charge of from the deducted $95-$225 stayed case was October De Stefano’s deposit carpet ant’s for professional consolidated a different case expiration cleaning at the lease.” pending against Apartments Apartments Downtown in July per- On Downtown inspection a checkout the resi- district formed court. The district court de- inspection, company dence. After partial De nied Stefano’s motion for sum- carpet arranged cleaning per- to be mary judgment case on the consolidated by a local company formed for a cost of May 2012. De moved then Stefano *8 $191. the case the small transfer back to claims division, granted and August Apartments the district court
On Downtown the its disclosing sent out statement the motion on June 8. standing disputed,
3. De Stefano's claims on assert not and behalf herself cotenants her three appeared agree- for its tenants to reach an July parties the “were free On holding financially De Stefano tenants small claims court. ment the re- trial in (1) claims, including sponsible repair damaged by a number of for of a door presented carpet-cleaning charges alleged that the automatic criminal act” and reversed that (2) illegal, that the aspect ruling. in lease were small the the claims court’s Second, replacement for of a door that had charges provision “because the lease re- burglary of during the the been garding responsibili- wrecked the tenant’s financial unlawful, (3) that were tenants’ residence ty damage for doors ... exterior was lost rent because two months’ the tenants prohibited,” not the district court found wrongfully refused to consent the landlord Apartments that Downtown was free to sublease, (4) puni- proposed to their proposed refuse to consent to sublease damages should be awarded under tive failure to the door due tenants’ withholding IURLTA the willful charge, accordingly and the court reversed deposit, that reasonable at- rental and Third, on as well. that issue the district torneys’ fees should be awarded carpet-clean- court held automatic IURLTA. illegal in its was “an provision lease require it not provision because does
The small claims court found prove any damage to specific landlord to in provision the lease was carpet-cleaning carpet” affirmed the small claims and unenforceable, making provisions Fourth, ground. court on that the district responsible damage for the tenants agreed court with the small claims court by a burglary door caused uncon- were nonpayment that late fees for of rent were unenforceable, pu- scionable and thus and Fifth, by supported evidence. actual damages warranted. The nitive were court the district concluded that “there applied court various other deductions to security faith was bad retention deposit ap- to this the rental relevant on, minimum, deposit [Apart- based at a peal. The court awarded De Stefano carpet- ments inclusion statutory in damages and DowntownJ’s $4520 $200 cleaning fee in the lease.” punitive damages for a total court.addi- $4720. tionally Apartments found that Downtown trial, After the De cocounsels Stefano’s deposit by in bad faith retained the rental Boyer separate filed two affi- Warnock assessing nonpayment of fees for late requesting attorney davits fees door, “late replacement cost when amounts be added to $5466 $1160 non-payment only permitted fees were judgment Apartments pro nunc tunc. of rent.” on ground Downtown resisted untimely attorney applications fee were holdings The court’s the award reduced and would excess result figure to De Stefano to This $851.54. jurisdictional limits of the small claims by taking deposit calculated $1635 on The court rule court. declined (the reducing by author- deductions $385 applications by Apartments because then claims court and not ized the small the Johnson appealed Downtown had appeal) De Stefano on challenged County District Court. (the charge replace- the door $598.46 ment),, adding punitive then appeal, On the district court reversed $200 Finally, damages. the district part part. affirmed district attorney De holdings rele- awarded Stefano court entered number of $1160 562A.12(8) First, al- Iowa Code section appeal. vant this the district because attorney lows for of reasonable Apartments Downtown and court held award *9 164 statutory grant. parties Id. “The them granted party. prevailing We
fees
discretionary
juris
subject
re-
selves cannot confer
matter
requests
parties’
both
Schott,
appeal.
and retained
diction
the court.” Schott v.
744
view
(Iowa 2008);
85, 87
N.W.2d
of
II.
Review.
Standard
discretionary
of a'
“In a
review
outset,
important
precisely
At the
decision, the nature of the
claims
small
legal
subject
behind
define
issue
the standard
case determines
review.”
jurisdictional challenge.
ques-
matter
Morales,
v.
Money
GE
Bank
773 N.W.2d
broad, freewheeling,
tion is not a
herme-
2009).
533,
(Iowa
review of small
536
Our
meaning
issue
“amount in
neutic
at law is for correction
claims actions tried
Instead,
controversy” or
the issue
“cost.”
Cashing,
Midwest
law.
Check
errors at
attorneys’
is narrow. The issue is whether
(Iowa
Richey,
399
Inc. v.
728 N.W.2d
may.
pursuant
be awarded
2007). “A
construction
statutory
review
be considered
deter-
should
IURLTA
Bank,
Money
773 N.W.2d
is at law.” GE
jurisdictional
mining whether the
limita-
court’s factual
at 536. The district
find
proceedings
tions of small claims
are ex-
upon this court
binding
are
ings,
expressly
is not
when the issue
ceeded
Id.;
supported by
if
substantial evidence.
addressed in-the. statutes.
Ct,
Dist.
765
Barnhill v. Iowa
N.W.2d
2009).
(Iowa
district
We review the
Statutory
B.
Provisions.
Relevant
fees for abuse
court’s award
jurisdictional
begin
analysis with
We
oúr
Leasing
GreatAmerica
of discretion.
statutory
provi
overview
relevant
Conditioning
Air
&
Corp. v. Cool Comfort
jurisdic
sions. The small claims
has
court
Inc.,
730, 732
Refrigeration,
691 N.W.2d
money
action[s]
tion over those
for a
“civil
(Iowa 2005).
judgment where the amount
controver
sy is
...
...
five thousand dollars
less
Preliminary
Court
III.
Small Claims
exclusive
interest
costs.”
Iowa
Analysis,
Jurisdictional
.2(1) (2011).4
631.1(1),
§§
legis
Code
Apartments
A.
Introduction.
lature
for small
created this scheme
claims
challenges
subject
matter
Downtown
“thought
because-it
it was in the public
jurisdiction
court. See
of the small claims
easier,
simpler,
provide
a'
interest
Ames,
Tigges City
N.W.2d
expensive
than
procedure
less
was afford
1984)
(Iowa
(noting
“[s]ubject
ed in
court under the Rules of
district
Civil
should be
jurisdiction
matter
considered
Beauty
Barnes
Coll. v.
Procedure.”
at
other matters
before
looks
court
(Iowa 1979);
McCoy,
279 N.W.2d
case”).
matter
“Subject
involved
Comm’n,
Study
Legis.
Report
see Iowa
Ct.
‘of
jurisdiction
power
a court
hear
I,
Assembly pt.
62d
General
general
cases
class
determine
legislature
(proposing to the
a new
question belong,
proceedings
which the
using
would hear claims
division that
merely
then
particular
case
occu
“simple, expeditious,
inexpensive”
Klinge v.
court’s attention.’”
pying the
procedure).
(Iowa 2006)
Bentien,
13, 15
N.W.2d
court, no
Co.,
pleadings
In small claims
(quoting
v. Rolscreen
Christie
(Iowa 1989));
required
begin
can
claimant
an action
Jurisdic
—a
by filling
simple
subject
tion
of a claim
out a
form.
over the
matter
Barnes,
631.3,
§§
.7(1);
by a constitutional or
sions to attorneys’ related fees. small, Iowa gues that the claims statute should 562A.12(8) provides Code section interpreted as.excluding attorneys’ may, court on a “[t]he action rental in determining controversy. the amount in agreement, attorney award reasonable fees According 631.1(1), to Iowa Code prevailing party.” sec- small claims action is “civil action tion' 562A.11 money judgment also has fee in con- where the amount Apartments oppose appeal Ste- Downtown did De never asserted that small claims attorney ground applications (or fano’s fee on the appeal) district court had they would result in an award in excess actually jurisdiction. lost jurisdiction, prior small to this but claims *11 Interestingly, court cit- ... five Lettenmaier troversy is thousand dollars standing two Iowa cases for the ed as ... interest and costs.” less exclusive cannot proposition attorneys’ fees exclusion maintains the De Stefano in juris- determining considered whether attorneys’ applies here because “costs” limits be- have been exceeded dictional under the considered costs fees should be attorneys’ “separate cause fees are that, argues De further statute. Stefano distinct” events that cannot be assessed matter, are reluctant practical judges liability (citing before established. Id. in attorneys’ landlord-tenant award fees Line, Inc., Ayala v. Ctr. N.W.2d actions, in fees case such would (Iowa 1987); v. Elview-Stewart Maday in rarely amounts which would be awarded Co., (Iowa 1982)). Sys., except total to exceed cause $5000 distinguished The Lettenmaier court fed- egregious an of the cases of violation diversity question is eral cases where the IURLTA. attorneys’ be consid- whether fees should from Other Jurisdictions. D. Caselaw jurisdictional ered order reach above, precise issue in As indicated Id. minimum. The court noted that attorneys’ is whether fees award- this case analogy diversity federal cases “loses its to the should be pursuant ed IURLTA power ap- persuasive entirely when it is purposes determining considered plied litigant’s access circumscribe jurisdiction of small claims courts when that is his or especially a court suited to expressly underlying statutes do not her claims.” Id. at 596. the issue. are number address There The Lettenmaier court also considered other eases states which address practical implications contrary of a rule. question. seeking noted plaintiffs The court quick relatively inexpensive resolution leading A case the view that supporting claims face small courts could defense attorneys’ fees should not be considered piling attorneys’ tactics fees to ex- jurisdiction determining the of New Jer jurisdictional Id. ceed maximum. of small court is Let sey’s version claims importantly, More the court feared that Inc., Connection, Lube tenmaier v. including attorneys’ part of the fees as (1999). A.2d In that N.J. put plaintiffs in controversy amount would case, question was whether award position of foregoing in the fees counsel attorneys’ Jersey fees under a New expedited process. order maintain the fraud consid consumer statute should be Id. controversy of the part amount ered as Jersey’s small claims New version Appeals A from the case Ohio Court Jersey Id. at 591. Su
court.
The New
supports leaving attorneys’ fees
also
out
Court, among
things, pointed
preme
jurisdic-
controversy”
the “amount
underlying provision of
the consum
Menczer,
App.2d
tion—Drake v.
67 Ohio
statute,
attorneys’
grouped
which
(1980).
er fraud
122,
neys’
tween
attorney[s’]
attributable
fees
tion statute
costs and not
are considered
bringing a lawsuit and those recoverable
jurisdictional
damages
purposes
for
of
lim
a
resulting from tort.” Id. at
courts).
municipal
in
itation
emphasized
n.
The court
attor
neys’
bringing
fees
attributable
a law
Kearns,
Oregon appel
In
v.
Arabian
suit are
compensate
attor
“intended
attorneys’
late court considered whether
neys,
[damages
intended to
are]
whereas
in determining
fees should be considered
compensate
Id.
the .victims.”
controversy
the amount in
an
Ore
n There are cases
gon
64 Or.App.
small claims statute.
that seem stand
(1983) (en banc).
1038, 1039
667 P.2d
contrary.-
example,
For
Texas courts
-
attorneys’
Oregon court concluded that'
generally
determining
have
in
held
fees should not be included
determining
controversy-for jurisdiction
the amount-in
jurisdictional
limit.
Id.
at 1040.
purposes,
damages, exemplary
al
actual
Reasons,
Among
Oregon
other
court
damages,
attorneys’
included.
fees
attorneys’
are not
stressed that
fees
a
Elizondo,
Villarreal v.
S.W.2d
proof-during trial,
of
but are in
matter
(Tex.App.1992).
qualified,
rule is
This
proee-
trial
stead determined after
and are
plaintiff
a
by
may
the notion that
durally treated like costs and disburse
damages exceeding
ju
seek additional
reasoning
Id.
close to that
ments.
This
they
risdictional limits'if
have occurred as
Lettemnaier,
Jersey
where the New
result
of
Id.
passage
a
time.-
Simi
Supreme
Saulka,
on
mak
Court relied
Iowa cases
larly, in
Properties
Pinnacle
point.
ing that
appellate
held that attor
Indiana
court
neys’
fees
be included
determin
should
appellate
A
court considered
Wisconsin
sought
purposes of
the amount
Roob,
the issue
Reusch v.
234 Wis.2d
determining
a small
jurisdiction
270, 610
(Wis.Ct.App.2000).
N.W.2d
101, 106 (Ind.Ct.
claims court. 693 N.E.2d
case,
appellate
In that
the Wisconsin
court
court noted that
App.1998). The Indiana
statutory attorneys’
considered whether
explicitly
small
claims statute did
consumer
fees awarded under Wisconsin
distinguish
attorneys’ fees and
between
protection statute
be' included
should
damages. Id.
determining
jurisdiction
purposes
Id. at
E.
no
a small claims court.
178. The
Iowa Caselaw. There is
statutory
directly
point
at-
on the
Reusch
concluded
caselaw
narrow
torneys’
jurisdictional
presented
fees should not be included.
Id.
here.
question
(1954).
cases, however,
These
that were
N.W.2d
two
There are:
cases, however,
question
deal with
have bear
by
cited
Lettenmaier
or
is suffi
attorneys’
the term “cost”
“costs”
of whether
whether
ing on
question
fee-shifting
to create a substantive
determining
cient
considered
fees should be
contrary
ordinary
Ameri
controversy
purposes
provision
amount
the'
-for
expense
party
rule that each
bears the
can
jurisdictional limitations.
attorneys. These
fees-charged
their
question
we considered
Maday,
question
simply do not address the
cases
attorneys’
in the context
Iowa Code
juris
reference
costs
whether
91A,
Payment Act. 324
Wage
chapter
attorneys’ fees
dictional statute includes
precise question
at 468.
separate statutory authori
there is a
when
attorneys’ fees should
posed
whether
fees to
ty to‘shift
the costs
judge
jury
pro
be determined
party.
Id. at
ceedings brought under -the statute.
*13
Maday,
469. In.
we
with authorities
sided
Analysis.
In interpreting
F.
attorneys’
statutory allowance-of
treating
631.1,
begin
the- statutory
section
we
logically
by
assessable
fees as costs
Marriage
re
Thatch
language. See In
of
at 469-70.
court. ID.
2015).
533,
(Iowa
er,
538
864 N.W.2d
phrases
or
that
undefined
are
“Words
Ayala.
a similar' result
We reached
there is no estab
statute or
which
There,
judge
question
was whether a
given
com
legal meaning are
their
lished
of
jury"
an award
at
or
determine
should
mon, ordinary meaning in the context
Rights
torneys’
the Iowa Civil
fees under
they
within which
used.” Bank
Ayala,
Act.
415
at 604.
ob
N.W.2d
We
of
Schulte,
Am., N.A. v.
843
880
N.W.2d
attorney
of
.fees is
that “an award
served
2014).
(Iowa
unambiguous,
If
is
the statute
equitable remedy
of an.
more in the nature
look no further
than
lan
will
damages.”
actual
Id. at we
than an
award
legislature.
In re
guage
by
chosen
further noted the assessment
605. We
(Iowa 2014).
J.C.,
495, 500
857 N.W.2d
fees,
attorneys’
like the assessment
construction,
we
pretext
“Under the
costs,
liability
until
is
court
cannot be done
;a statute, expand
stat
may not extend
therefore,
Id.
We
as
established.
at 606..
Am.,
ute,
meaning.”
change
its
Bank of
question
Maday,. determined
att
use various resources expressly has said that automatically mechanically aids do costs includes fees.. For exam inescapable 2A produce answers. ple, Iowa Code section 6B.33 authorizes & Shambie Singer Singer, Norman J. of all payment appeals costs in of condem ‘ Construction, Statutory Statutes “including nation proceedings reasonable 2014). (7th § 45.13,187-38 ed. rev. contexts, attorney fees.”6 In other legislature had declared the court noting have trouble We .little may tax “as attorney costs” a reasonable meaning of the terms “amount contro instance, For fee. in Iowa section versy” purposes and “costs” for of deter general assembly provided 625.22 the mining jurisdic claims the limits of small judgment upon recovered “[w]hen tion cannot under Iowa Code 631.1 containing agreement written contract ah by simply declaring plain be resolved fee, attorney. meaning. open-textured Both terms are the court shall variety part and can include and allow and tax as of the costs a exclude wide reason items, depending attorney on context. The ambi able fee to be determined guity of the terms is This statutory legislative language plainly demonstrat court.”7 See, 207.14(5) (2015) (al suit, e.g., bringing including Iowa Code a reasonable attor fee”, lowing law); "all ney to assess reasonable costs' competition under Iowa id. expenses, including attorney reasonable costs, *14 § (levying attorney including 598.24 proceeding regarding fees” in administrative against party, contempt fees a in a divorce ; mining § inspection) coal id. 421B.10 proceeding); (allowing §id. 600B.25 court to suit, (awarding including "costs of reasonable prevailing party paternity in a award suit "the attorney plaintiffs fees” vio for established suit, including reasonable costs of but not statutes); cigarett e lations of id. sales fees”); attorney limited to reasonable id. 455B.111(4) (authorizing § of costs in- award 633.551(5), costs, (assessing §§ .673 in . eluding attorney any party fees to action fees, cluding attorney guardianship of a violations); for natural resources statute id. estate); against ward or ward’s id. 501A.801(4)(h) (allowing § to order court (permitting § 633A.4507 court to costs award costs, payment of "party’s reasonable includ including attorney any par reasonable fees to ing attorney fees” reasonable in suits over the ty proceeding in a on the administration records); inspection id. business trust); 654.17(2) (allowing § mortgagee id. 504.1604(3) any ordering § (requiring court costs, charge including mortgagor "the rea nonprofit corporation inspection to allow the fees, attorney sonable and re foreclosure by of its member "pay records to also scission”); 714.16(11) § (entitling attorney id. costs, including member’s reasonable attor action, general of court in to recover costs fees”); 507C.46(2) ney (stating §id. fees, cluding attorneys’ reasonable in consum- applicant liquidation for assets in insurer action); 714.16B(1)(h)(3) (pro- § er fraud id. expenses liqui “shall the costs and of the viding recovery attorney part fees as for resisting including application dator the' bringing reasonable costs of a civil action for fee”); (as attorney § reasonable id. 533C.705 theft); 715A.2A(3)(h) identity (assessing §id. sessing including attorney costs reasonable against any employer that accommodates against persons who fees violate the Uniform in fraud the of an action costs enforcement (allow Act); 535B.13(3) § Money Services id. fees). attorney cluding ing court to order that unlicensed banker investigation "pay prose costs for the See, 202B.401(2)(&) e.g., §. . 7. Iowa Code including cution of the action enforcement (2015) (awarding attorney fees that are fees”); 552A.5(3) "taxed attorney (stating § id. part parties of the costs of the action” to as persons injured by statutory pre violations of prevailing agricultural process in actions for scriptions memberships may for sale of club violations); 202C.3(1) "costs, (taxing ing § including attorney id. attor recover fees”);, reasonable 553.12(4) legal (allowing injured-per ney part § of the costs action id. as of a fees "[rjecover necessary breaching agreement); son or state to costs for a sales -id. contexts, Yet, statutes, legislature that, has
suggests at least some fees and as enough “costs” referred costs simple term broad addition, separate items.8 fees. and distinct attorney include loss, (awarding compensation pecuniary sumer to § attor recover “reasonable 257B.33 fees, ney as costs in attorney's taxed actions in action over de fees and costs” id, debts); vehicle); to recover school § boards (permit fective motor id. 327C.21 (allowing § court tax "costs in costs, as 327D.16 ting judgment for court to "render - case,” of suit and the costs a reasonable attorney’s representing fees for counsel 479.46(6) fee); § (prescribing attorney id. against state” actions railroads for viola company pay appeal pipeline all costs of public); tions of duties owed id. of installation an assessment 502,509(2)(c), (3)(c) § (permitting award attorney “including fees to be reasonable attorney costs and fees in reasonable securi court”); (same 479B.30(6) §id. taxed actions); 523D.7(1) (permitting § re ties id. id, 502.509(5) damages); § for construction covery of costs reasonable "court attor attorney (awarding fees taxed as court costs ney provider continuing fees” from care for against maintaining unregis actions clients 523D); § chapter violations of id. 523H.13 advisers); (al §id. tered investment 573.21 (creating liability for both costs and reason costs, tax, attorney as fees for lowing court to chapter attorney able fees for violators re establishing parties a claim labor or mate franchises); 535.8(4)(d), .11(8) garding §§ id. improvements); public rials id. (allowing recovery of both costs attor 717A.3(2){b) (awarding § "reasonable attor ney fees who from lender or creditor collects fees, part be taxed ney shall as which 535A.6(2) charge); § (permit id. an unlawful action,” prevailing plaintiffs costs of the ting damages, court to actual court award crops); damage to Iowa R. Civ. P. actions for costs, if attorney fees financial institution estate, ("On partition of real not of but 1.1225 violation); "red-lining” id. committed fix, personal property, the shall and tax (authorizing § a consumer’s recov 537.3621 costs, plaintiff’s in favor attor a fee costs); ery of attorney and court id. ney..,.”). (authorizing 551A.8 awards of reasonable (re See, 21.6(3)(b) (2015) e.g., Iowa Code attorney costs for fees and court violations of the payment order of all quiring court to opportunity pro disclosure in business attorney per to a costs and reasonable fees” motions); 572.32(1) (permitting prevail §id. *15 claim); open meetings prevailing on an son ing plaintiff attorney recover reasonable 22.10(3)(e) (providing § id. a court shall lien); fees in action to enforce mechanic’s id. costs payment of all "order and reason 598B.312(1) (awarding § prevailing parties person prevailing attorney able fees” a seeking attorney support and fees child costs claim); 80A.16A(2)(au § open an id. records along expenses proceedings); attorney thorizing fees reasonable costs 633.713(4) (stating § may id. that court assess part recovery persons injured by as for expenses including attorney fees and court agents); enforcement actions of bail id. against engaging unjustifiable party costs employer (making 91§ 8 an that intention A. proceeding); regarding guardianship conduct wages ally liable for costs fails to "court "assess, § (permitting id. 649.5 court recovering any attorney’s fees incurred in court, ordinary addition costs of an 216,15(9)(a )(8), wages”); §§ unpaid id. attorney plaintiff fee” to a successful in an .17A(6)(11)(allowing plaintiff in discriminato title); 663A.l(6)(a) § quiet action to id. wage ry housing or action recover reason (listing part of the recoverable costs); fees and court attorney’s id. able person wrongfully imprisoned "court costs any entity § (providing that that dis 217.31 imposed paid reasonable attor records té seminates confidential liable 685.3(6)( n ) fees”); ney's (enabling §id. re costs, expenses, and "court reasonable attor covery “litigation costs and at id, reasonable 252B.13A(1) fees”); (stating ney § id. whistleblowers); torney fees” certain payments "support child do not include attor § disseminating costs”); (making 692.6 crimi 252K.313(3) entities § ney id. [or] fees chapter ("The nal history violation of information payment shall order the tribunal costs, expenses, and reason attorney's liable “court if deter and reasonable costs id, 714B.8(2) fees”); (provid hearing requested attorney able primarily mines was that a 322G.8(3) delay.”); (allowing ing con for recovery "[c]osts id. and reasonable
171 different, although peace we have courts and the other inferior courts the context interpreted “costs” previously not the word when that had resolved small civil to be inclusive of used alone in statute disputes. Suzanne E. Elwell & Christo- Weaver, at attorney fees. See 348 N.W.2d Carlson, D. pher Iowa Small Claims (“We however, that the agree, do not Empirical Analysis, Court: An Iowa chapter be so [in 677] word ‘costs’ should L. Rev. 453-60 [hereinafter attorney liberally stretched as include Elwell], system, Under the former we fees.”); Turner, at Iowa attorneys’ viewed contractual fees as (“[Section always has 625.1] equivalent to costs for amount-in-contro- costs, ordinary been held mean the versy purposes and thus excluded them fees.”). including attorney computing jurisdictional limit: to extrapolate should be careful not We question argued certified and One seems foregoing too much statutes and record, to arise from the properly They suggest, authorities. do character; of a determinative and that ambiguity the threshold test of has is, whether, in determining as to crossed and that we resort been jurisdiction justice, ques- where a interpretive guide tools to inus determin- tion is as to made the amount in contro- presented the narrow issue here.9 versy, attorney’s for in provided fee in determining In order to aid us note part is to considered a meaning of claims stat- costs the small amount controversy, treated as ute where substantive statute authorizes costs. fees, payment we turn to expressly The statute declares that it precursors of small historical our current part shall be treated as a of the costs. passage of claims statute. Before the Section 2 of above act cited. The Trial Act Unified Court 1972—1972 then, controversy, amount justice- Iowa chapter Acts 1124—Iowa had $100, justice more than and the had amount-in- of-the-peace courts with limited jurisdiction. controversy jurisdiction. See Iowa Code (1971). Thomas, Spiesberger §§ legislature Bros. v. 602.1-.56 creat- (1882). ed the small claims division of Fifty years N.W. later, justice-of-the- replace point: district courts to we reiterated this charges attorney person pecuni payable by any of fees” when suffers to be convicted ' prize fender). ary loss because of a violation of the *16 714D.6(l)(c) law); promotion (allowing §id. recovery of reasonable “[c]osts for ney and attor attorneys’ 9. Prior to contractual fees by against fees” in an action a consumer percentage recovery. of were a See Iowa fraud); provider a for id. telecommunications (1979) (authorizing § 625.22 court (permitting attorney general § -to 714G.11 attorney percent- tax as costs an fee set as a monetary penalties, civil seek "a for award recovered), Thereafter, age of the amount fees, attorney and costs” for consumer credit were authorized to award reasonable courts violations); 729,6(8) (awarding part §id. as attorneys' § fees. See Iowa Code 625.22 genetic aggrieved party of relief to an (1981) (authorizing to award a reason- costs); court testing attorney laws fees and id. fee). argue attorney able One could that once § (providing that hate crime victims 729A.5 may bring attorney given authority an for "reasonable were to determine rea- action courts costs”); 809A.12(7) (requir fees, § and fees[] id. attorneys' longer sonable it no became ing agency bringing pay forfeiture action to possible to in same tax them the mechanical costs); attorney fees and reasonable id. that were Yet "tax” manner costs taxed. 910,2(1) (listing “court costs” and the statute, terminology in the remained "court-appointed attorney separate fees” as - attorney’s upon fee” agreement in holding no know of case [W]e has been recovered is a jurisdiction, judgment which question determining application precedent clear condition for costs is into consid- the prayer taken See, e.g., Bankers Trust determining of section 625.22. the amount eration Woltz, n. costs v. & controversy. right Co. 326 N.W.2d 277-78 recover 625,22 (Iowa 1982) one, to a (applying section statutory is and an incident contract). So, 625.22 surety true that con- does litigation. equally It is here; fees, attorney’s apply for may provide tracts recognized right courts have and stated, previously have We provides provide; so but the statute attorneys’ statutory, noncontractual part as they should be taxed taxed treated fees are likewise as by is fixed amount costs. The thereof costs: statute, is not matter therefore attorney provides When a statute for They parties. controversy between is silent as to ascertain- but their any category as other are in same ment, the better to be that find rule we litigation, statutory costs incident “[wjhere attorneys’ allowed to fees are into consideration cannot be taken party, they the successful controversy determining the amount of costs and are nature taxable words, In other parties. between the as such.” treated attorney’s fees made claim of $50 for Maday, (quoting at 469 324 N.W.2d simply plaintiff claim (1965)); see also Am. Jur. 2d Cost costs, as for other costs the same As Ayala, 415 indicated N.W.2d at litigation. incident to the above, Ayala Maday and were cited 453, 455-56, Boren, 215 Johnson v. support holding Lettenmaier in its (1932). 712-13 N.W. attorneys’ not included within fees are legislation did not Given the 1972 controversy purposes amount de attorneys’ explicitly how fees were address termining limits small jurisdictional jurisdictional amount to be handled claims courts. stating that costs purposes, apart from above, prior As to the 1972 Uni noted excluded, fair to think it is should be we Act, fied Court we had clear that made a con general assembly infer intended fees were taxed as because contractual Farm law. See Iowa prior tinuation of costs, they excluded were therefore Envtl, Comm’n, Prot. Bureau Fed’n v. amount-in-coñtroversy calculation. (Iowa 2014) (“The legisla Since fees authorized the state presumed ture to know costs, it are likewise taxed statute law, law, case time including treated, incongruous they seems would be statute,” - (quoting enacts a Welch differently i.e., part deemed — 801 N.W.2d. Dep’t Transp,, controversy. go amount This would (Iowa 2011))), ju The cost exclusion for against holdings Spiesberger therefore risdictional amount purposes taxed as that amounts costs do Johnson *17 attorneys’ to contractual
would extend
jurisdictional
against
count
limit.
not
fees.
455-56,
Johnson,
at
245
at
215
N.W.
Iowa
712-13;
course,-
Spiesberger, 59 Iowa at
directly answer
Of
this does not
Treating
as costs
attor
at 746.
such fees
question
of how noncontractual
N.W.
purposes
for
avoids
seem
be
The exis
section 631.1
neys’ fees should
treated.
attorneys’ fees
containing
ingly
an
odd situation where
tence of “a written contract
not
controversy
sometimes would and sometimes would
states when the amount
controversy,
$75,000,
count
the amount
toward
exceeds
“exclusive of interest and
depending
(2012).
on the
for those fees.
§
basis
costs.” 28 U.S.C.
Contrac-
statutory attorneys’
tual and
generally
fees
Further,
reasoning
think the
we
against
limit,
jürisdictional
count
see
contained in the
caselaw
out-of-state
de
al.,
14AA
Wright
Charles A.
et
Federal
clining
attorneys’
to include
fees awarded
Practice and Procedure
at 806-12
determining
the lim
pursuant
statute
(2011),
legislature employed
and our
-the
jurisdiction
persua
its of small claims
phrase
same
of interest and
—“exclusive
Reusch,
As
pointed
pur
sive.
out
costs”—in the
Court Act in 1972.
Unified
pose
statutory
compensate
not to
fees is
(codified
1124, §
Acts ch.
at
plaintiffs
damages,
their
but to com
(1973)). Yet,
§ 631.1
Iowa Code
as noted
pensate attorneys.
at 179.
N.W.2d
Lettenmaier,
including
attorneys’ fees
reasoning suggests
This
'of
award
against the
limit
jurisdictional
con-
statutory attorneys’
not
in
fees should
be
diversity
text
the federal
statute is de-
jurisdictional pur
cluded for small claims
access,
signed to expand
to the federal
poses. See id.
cases,
court
substantial
not contract
suggested
As
Ara
Lettenmaier and
access to small claims court where matters
bian,
statutory attorneys’
the fact that
fees
efficiently
are
resolved.
expeditiously
ordinarily
are
the fact
determined
174 obligation simply could tenant’s was inde- pie of kind case rent obligation to by pendent of the landlord’s realistically prosecuted not have been (Plus) Campbell, Forty E. tenant. Donald pro tenants a se' basis. We student on Years the Revolution: Observations encourage of small claims the use want After Implied Warranty Habitability, on disputes, for procedure landlord-tenant 793, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 796-97 preferred simply forum at risk put (2013) Campbell]. [hereinafter represented by com- because tenants are petent and zealous counsel. urbanization, industrialization and With began common law to take courts above, For all the reasons stated no-repair look at the traditional second persuaded the exclusion we id. at doctrine. See 797. the modern applies in Iowa Code section 631.1 costs age, many relationships landlord-tenant in costs,” i.e., attorneys’ amounts “taxed as in which the core inter volved residences separately Accord fees when authorized. appropriate living est was jurisdic ingly, the small claims had space, sprawling crop for produc land opinion tion to this case. Our hear at yeoman tion. See id. 799. While limited to 631.1 and should not be generally for farmer could maintain land expressing that when the taken view agricultural purposes as as the well land contexts, term “costs” is used lord, city modern dwellers lacked the abili encompasses attorneys’ fees. ty necessary repairs make residential Lovell, See 31 L. Rev. at property. Drake Duties and Tenant Landlord IV. Further, many 259. courts noted the dis Regarding Damaged Exterior Door. power parity bargaining between land Development Implied A. War- See, e.g., Knight lords and tenants. v. Habitability. ranty of Fitness Hallsthammar, 46, 29 171 Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d 707, 268, (1981) (en banc); 623 P.2d law 1. overview. The relat- Historical Mitchell, Mgmt. Corp. Park v. W. relationships ed to landlord-tenant has N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d centuries, For evolved over time. land- (1979). 1288, 1292 governed by property law lord-tenant was Lovell, law. See Russell E. The Iowa Uni- changed As a of these result social and circumstances, Residential Landlord Tenant began economic courts form Act Home and the Iowa Mobile Parks change prevailing legal regime sur- Act, Residential Landlord and Tenant 31 rounding relationship. the landlord-tenant Many departed Drake L. Rev. 256-57 [herein- courts the traditional Fox, Lovell]; also 200 no-repair through implying after see Mease rule what was (Iowa 1972). right warranty of fitness and habitabil- N.W.2d labeled possess agricultural purposes ity early lease. By land residential 1970s, courts, thought majority including to be at the heart of the transac- of state tion, result, Iowa, as a no common provided protection landlord had law obligation repair habitability structures located residential tenants ensure Mease, See, Mease, property. premises. e.g., at cases). Further, recognized (citing the common law N.W.2d at 796 These cases 793. independent of independency doctrine under which the abandoned the doctrine well, percent plaintiffs thirty-one percent small claims cases. See El Iowa L. Rev. for defendants in tenant Consultation with attor- claims. Id. at neys appears thirty-four to occur J. between Table
175
whereby
of habit
obligations
implied warranty
while under the
imposed mutual
possession
in
ability
may stay
the
rent
tenant
right
the landlord’s
receive
was
obligation
547 nn.
from the landlord’s
and still not
rent. See id. at
&
inseparable
relationship
addition,
premises.
289.-90.In
the landlord-tenant
a fit and habitable
provide
ongoing relationship.
s
an
i
underpinnings
analytic
Eclectic
2.
of
Thus,
implied
the analogy, comparing the
implied
analytic bases
doctrine. The
habitability
of
with contract law
Warranty
habitability
of
eclectic.
warranty
were
utility
or
UCC has
limited
analogy
an
to contract
courts drew
Some
Rabin,
”
H.
See Edward
well
“misnamed.
general
implied
and the
warranties
law
in Residential Land
Revolution
Uniform Commercial Code
under
Consequences,
lord-Tenant Law: Causes and
See,
(UCC)
e.g., Javins
particular.
v.
517,
(1984)
9
L.
521
Rev.
Cornell
6
1071,
Realty Corp.,
First Nat’l
428 F.2d
generally Camp
See
Rabin].
[hereinafter
W.,
(D.C.Cir.1970); Park
418
1075
bell, U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. at 829-
35
1292;
310,
Mary
N.Y.S.2d
Leases: From Contract ordinarily of emptor that “the caveat rule (1979) [hereinafter L. Ann. 3 Cunnin applies 260 as between lessor and lessee.” ] gham . 490, 496, 815, (1967), 149 N.W.2d '3; Mease, part by at by tenants breaches N.W.2d Remedies overruled of later, however, in implied warranty habitability. years Once Five 796. of Mease, implied on a new course not- courts that an warran- we embarked determined ty habitability matter of the landlord’s stentorian existed as a withstanding law, departure questions remedy proclamation prece- inevi- substantive tably way One involved dent our of life.” 200 arose. would “wreck cases strand , then, make embraced ability necessary tenants repairs implied warranty of fitness then reasonable law recover common Code, housing by offering has often been lax if not behind codes policies enforcement
inconsistent, remedy. Creating the sanctions for violations potentially more effective comparatively have been characterized private right public of action for violation of Levine, Warranty mild. Joel Habit- R. wrongs legal provenance. has solid Altz (1969). ability, 2 Rev. Conn. L. Ac- Leiberson, 233 N.Y. N.E. commentator, cording "[bjousing to one code (Cardozo, J.); Ripley Thayer, Ezra notoriously unsuccess- has been enforcement Harv, Action, Wrong Public and Private L. adopted ful.” Id. Common law courts (1914). Rev. implied habitability warrant of advance habitability implied warranty in common law residential' leases habitabil ity in Iowa. Id. at 796. Mease. implied 5. The issue waiver every implied holding warranty habitability. The Mease
warranty we on the habitability, relied court, however, expressly did decide Id. of Javins. at 795.12 We case seminal warranty implied of fitness whether court emphasized, the Javins noted habitability or over- could be waived among things, many tenants by agreement of parties. ridden *21 ability repair structures lack provide Mease did a list factors of .., income “[l]ow that and middle tenants pertinent “testing in the effect materi- financing any be unable to obtain would It ality alleged of breach.” Id. at 797. long- major they since have no repairs explicit not in is Mease whether factors . (quot Id. property.” term interest in the germane remedy. or to were breach .1078-79), Javins, 428 F.2d at We Mease, According pertinent factors favorably passage in Pines for the cited materiality” of “testing the effect and policies that propositions public manifested alleged breach include “whether housing and the need and standards intelligently voluntarily, knowingly and desirability housing “too adequate were defects, estopped or is raise waived obnox important by to be rebuffed [the] question of Id. the breach.” cliche, legal emptor.” ious caveat Id. at factor, precise meaning of this The 413). Pines, (quoting 111 at 794 relationship by to other listed its factors of in recognized further that because We court, upon is not in Mease elaborated equality bargaining power, poten “the of developed subsequent or The caselaw. in no position tial lessee is to dicker about materiality” “testing the effect lan- basic Id. at even the most necessities.” guage, suggests that there must 794-95. present be a before the specific defect question estoppel of waiver recognized thus in Mease common We At least one court has ruled considered. warranty habitability law of and declared warranty habitability common that law implied warranty that under the the leased a list of yet cannot be waived still had premises during the entire “shall remain materiality of the factors to determine the to maintain term such condition alleged Hemingway, breach. 293 dwelling.” habitability of the Id. at 796. at 843-44. N.E.2d upheld recognized that had While we we emptor prior event, the doctrine of caveat majority of courts in cases, reject[s] noted “this court jurisdictions we that that have the is- other taken application perpet of stare to avoid common decisis sue on have head held habitability cannot uating implied warranty decisional law made obsolete law 797-98; Haynes generally at see v. Pres These nonwaiver time.” Id. be waived. Ass’n, 1269, byterian policy pur-' 241 45 Hosp. emphasized public courts (1950). implied warranty and the opinion poses N.W.2d 151 is Mease verve, confidence, effectively inability of most bar- written with and evén tenants example, For question adopt gain on the with their whether landlords. Goldberg Implied Warranty compared Hab- 12. Javins has been v. .Rise and Fall U.S.254, Kelly, L.Ed.2d 397 90 S.Ct. itability, 99 Cal. L. Rev. (1970), importance protecting its Super]. [hereinafter people. Super, A. low-income See David Javins, Kline, (stating A.2d the court See at 252 leading case can no-repair old the tenant waived the defects” “the rule “whether stressed that imposed on obligations “deciding if has with the a factor in there been coexist typical housing Gambino, aby breach”); modern the landlord Berzito v. 63 N.J. Following (1973) (citing 428 F.2d 1076-77. laundry code.” A.2d list Javins, George the court rationale determining factors nonexhaustive Weintraub, University held Washington v. a breach of whether there “has been considerations, including public policy lessor, habitability” by in covenant bargaining power and scarci inequality of said to have cluding the tenant be “[c]an by private ty of waiver housing, prohibited com estopped or be waived the defect 458 A.2d agreement parties. what plain?”). condi Whether Similarly, in Green (D.C.Ct.App.1983). outweigh a waiver would tions Court, Supreme the California Superior Further, explained. pre factors re policy emphasized “public Court waiver, requirements for such a such cise per generally not be quires that landlords consid supported whether must be *22 superior bargaining mitted to their use agree independent of eration the rental warranty to the of habitabili power negate ment, solely from after- it whether arises 704, 616, Cal.Rptr. 111 ty rule.” 10 Cal.3d whether agreements, settlement the-fact banc). (1974) (en 1168, n. 9 517 P.2d 1173 only is a the is when there defect waived offer similar rationales Other cases give of the the landlord failure implied warranty of of hab nonwaiver timely problem of and a reason notice 707, itability. Knight, Cal.Rptr. 171 repair, opportunity whether able which (stating P.2d at 273 “reasons must of actual and bal there be evidence warranty of the of imply the existence waiver, is bargaining anced related habitability compel ... the conclusion” explored not cases. waived); warranty cannot be Fair that however, partially possible, It is rec- Pa.Super. Negley, A.2d cases oncile the cases. The nonwaiver (emphasizing that we “[w]ere generally proposition for the stand implied warranty by of permit waiver categorical implied of the warran- waivers lease, express provision would ty habitability prior of to the actual dam- a rare lease which waiver would be Thus, age requires repair are barred. Foisy, appear”); P.2d at 164-65 in a form anticipatory language detailed bargaining (rejecting between landlord agreement waiving implied war- lease habitability); disadvantaged tenant over ranty habitability of is barred. Once a 367, 253 McCoy, 162 Teller v. W.Va. S.E.2d occurs, however, par- potential breach 114, 130-31 (1978) (holding waivers war negotiate for the separately ties then ranty against public see She policy); repair, provided any subsequent Green, Paradoxes, by D. Parallels agreement fairly supported is is bargained, Tort Lia Fictions: The Case Landlord independent consideration under- bility Resi Under the Revised Uniform lease, underlying lying resolves the Act, Landlord-Tenant 38 Hamline dential habitability problem. (2015). L. Rev. (Second) Property: are, however, The Restatement cases squishy
There fewa however, Tenant, which, Mease, appears to suggest Landlord and ambiguously like implied have taken war- that whether a “waived the view tenant had subject ranty negoti- habitability a factor considered might defect” be to be analysis. ation the landlord and tenant. along the line in between somewhere (Second) leading authority noted that provides that Another The Restatement to con- “[although might tempted one parties to the extent “[e]xcept read, understood, if the tenant otherwise,” a clude agree validly signed repugnant clause the lease his or if the her duties residential breaches enforced, this is erro- should be conclusion use. not suitable residential premises is Rabin, 69 Rev. at neous.” Cornell 582. L. (Second) Prop.; Landlord Restatement including Because market defects (1977 5.5(1), Supp. § & at & Tenant heavy transaction and information costs (Second) ]; 2015) Restatement [hereinafter competition practical and the absence 5.6, § 215.13 What consti see also id. at at terms, among concerning such landlords agreement,” a “valid tutes to enforce such courts should refuse excul- 5.5(1), Fur id. at 205. explored. See “truly patory absent effective bar- clauses (Second) 5.3, ther, Restatement gaining.” Id. at 583. states, as a matter c “The tenant comment law unable waive remedies of the Iowa B. Provisions Uniform entry, if him the time at available Tenant Act. In Residential Landlord and unsafe or entry it would be the time pro- Law Commission Uniform unhealthy property leased to use the the Uniform Residential Land- mulgated Id. contemplated by parties.” manner and Tenant Act. Unif. Residential lord 5,3 c, Additionally, a Re cmt. at 190. Act, Tenant 7B U.L.A. Landlord & states, of this porter’s Note “The rule sec (2001). adopted its version housing not allow waiver of code tion does Act. Acts ch. the Uniform 1978 Iowa *23 public policy consid [because of] violations (codified 562A Iowa Code ch. 5.3, 3; § see reporter’s Id. note erations.” (1981)). leading con- As noted Ann. at 96- Cunningham, 16 Urb. also L. commentator, the Iowa statute temporary 97. of close facsimile the URLTA. See was a Lovell, 31 L. Rev. at 255. Drake caselaw, authori
As the with academic n regarding come to ties varied conclusions provi- substantive The IURLTA’s first implied law waivability of the common the of of the Act. purposes sion is a statement warranty habitability. authority One of Noteworthy § Code 562A.2. is Iowa warranty habit implied if notes that the 562A.2(2)(c), which describes ability be read into leases could waived purposes being “[t]o [e]nsure the one of lan inserting exculpatory the landlord receipt of is right rent lease, very guage into the same little duty maintain from the to inseparable L. Han Thus, See Ted accomplished. 562A.2(2)(c). would be § Id. premises.” sen, Interest Areas Landlord- Current obligations of emphasizes that the statute Iowa, Law 22 Drake L. Rev. Tenant with inextricably landlords intertwined (“[T]he same reasons that right rent. See id. Fur- to receive warranty ther, “liberally of habita- con- implied chapter is to be necessitate promote to this under- prohibition applied” strued and bility would also necessitate 562A.2(1). § purpose. Id. against warranty.”). lying of that waiver If, (Second) nority position. the Restatement If is viewed as the Restatement (Second) recognized generally implied that a valid contractual permitting waivers of the contrary public warranty habitability by provision to contract states cannot implied warranty recognized implied policy in the the common law embraced that have cases, ground. warranty habitability, represents firmer a mi- it on Rabin, 69 L. language regarding the Cornell landlord-tenant law. The IURLTA to maintain Rev. at 582. duty premises of the landlord URLTA. Iowa Code sec- is similar to the hand, argues On the one the landlord 562A.15(1) imposes categories six tion recog- specified-repairs provision landlords, including duty to duties ability nizes and tenant landlord - répairs and do whatever all “[m]ake freely agreements allocating into enter keep
necessary put premises and responsibilities par- the duties of the Id. a fit habitable condition.” arm’s-length as in any ties contract. The 562A.15(1)(5). respect § two cat- With support language in landlord draws (landlord’s contractual, trash egories duty provide suggesting provi- Mease - running supply and. to water- and services determining were a factor in sions heat), single- of a the landlord and tenant alleged or materiality effect breach. writing family may agree in residence at 797. perform tenant the landlord’s have the hand, On the other the tenant counters 562A.15(2). addition, § Id. duties. may put that if provi landlords contractual into landlord and tenant enter written tenants to requiring sions assume leases agreements perform “spec- that the tenant responsibility would what otherwise be the tasks, repairs,' maintenance altera- ified repairs keep to make tions, remodeling, only but if habitable, premises fit substantive good into in faith.” transaction is entered statutory protection duty
Id.
provide
landlord to
maintain a
fit and
strong
The IURLTA
has a
anti-
also
premise
largely
habitable
would be
evis
provision.
waiver
Iowa Code section
up
cerated. The
could end
562A.11(1)(a) provides that a
provi
right
“the
rent and
little
precious
or
party “[a]grees
sion in which a
to waive
Lovell,
else.”
Professor Lovell’s is the Iowa Act as. interpretation cer- Professor tainly plausible. implied may make war- Lovell sense. The "While tenants., ranty generally of habitability imposes IURLTA protects six affirmative sub- statutory stantially, upon limits does eviscerate duties a landlord regarding but contracting-out provision premises. leased Iowa Code Iowa Code 562A.15(1). 562A.15(2). tenant, Specifically, A landlord and the landlord is to, instance, required might agree that a tenant man, perform specified repairs handy aas a. Comply requirements with obligation but the the costs remains applicable building housing codes n Or, repairs specific landlord. materially affecting safety. health and repairs could be limited to minor that do b. repairs Make all and do whatever duty affect the landlord’s to provide a necessary put keep the premis- premises. habitable Lo- But Professor es in a fit and habitable condition.' contemporary vell’s interpretation best c. Keep common all areas approach to thé Iowa statute? premises in a clean safe condi- (cid:127) of other We note states’ ,... versions tion any ambiguity URLTAs often avoid re d. in good safe Maintain work- garding scope any potential contrac electrical, order and condition all .instance, tual waiver For tenant. plumbing, heating, sanitary, ventilating, expressly provides Minnesota law air-conditioning, and other facilities include., repairs specified do not repairs appliances.... necessary keep premises “the and all appropriate e. and maintain Provide common ... fit for their use intend areas *25 receptacles and for the conveniences .... parties.” ed the Minn.Stat. ashes, central collection removal of -and 504B.161(1), (2) (2015). § On the other rubbish, garbage, and other waste.... hand, expressly some states authorize Supply running reason- water and f open-ended opt-out provisions contractual able amounts of hot water all at times terms. For example, in unmistakable the and reasonable heat. Wyoming specifically statute that states Id. “[a]ny duty obligation or in this article may by explicit be .... modified written provides The statute that the landlord signed agreement parties.” Wyo. agree, the may writing and tenant in the 1-21-1202(d) (West, § perform speci- Stat. Ann. Westlaw the landlord’s duties Sess.). (e) through 562A.15(2). § current Simi fied (f) Gen. Id. above. duty from the to maintain the provides the severed further land- statute through a and well-law- may agree writing premises detailed and tenant lord yered exhaustively listing form contract specified ... “perform have the tenant alterations, If tasks, specified repairs. posi- the landlord’s repairs, maintenance followed, tion this is the statute only if the transaction case remodeling, but very respect ensures little with main- good faith.” Id. is entered into taining premises and does not ensure ap- Apartments Downtown’s Under receipt inseparable of rent is from the section, “specified repairs” proach to the duty premises. to maintain the obligation pro- landlord’s Indeed, under the freedom-of-contract premises habitable vide a fit and approach, duty premis- to maintain the 562A.15(1)(&) can be undermined separable. is quite es the landlord’s While laundry specified repairs. list of by a stock duty premises has maintain habitable landlord, of the approach Under the as critical been characterized and central statutory obligations relat- listing entire law, be landlord-tenant would under- premises of the ed to the fitness —and approach. under the mined landlord’s (e) (f) obligations under just' L. Campbell, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock Rev. Further, away. contracted above— Lovell, 807; L. at see also 31 Drake Rev. highly expen- be liable for tenant could 310; Christopher L. Richard Costella & that occur at the end repairs sive Morris, Virginia Landlord and S. West though the tenant term of the even lease A Proposal Legislative Tenant Law: the uninhabitable did not cause condition Reform, 100 L. Rev. W. Va. to arise. (1997). sweeping ap- Apartments Downtown’s Further, regard- as noted the caselaw proach arguably inconsistent with what is ing implied warranty the common law has legislature declared is one habitability, duty rooted is substantial- IURLTA, namely, of the purposes main ly public policy. Comment to section [ejnsure right receipt “[t]o 2.104(d) of the URLTA notes that “[stan- inseparable duty from the rent habitability dards of dealt this sec- premises.” Id. maintain of public police power tion are a matter added). 562A.2(2)(c) Indeed, § (emphasis parties of the rather than contract purpose the statement of reflects view special legislation.” landlord-tenant Unif. of indepen- common doctrine law & Tenant Act Residential Landlord dency of and tenant duties has 2.104(d) cmt., 7B U.L.A. 326-28. The And, legislature has been abandoned. recognizes beyond comment that interests our consideration of directed us parties implicated by implied IURLTA, matters under the statute Glendon, warranty. L. Rev. at B.C. “liberally applied” construed and should be plainly against This comment cuts promote purposes, certainly includ- its duty to shifting pro- the tenant to ensuring right receipt that “the premises in vide a fit and habitable inseparable duty from the rent documents. 562A.2(1)- premises.” maintain the Id. *26 (2). argued It thus be could interpretation, legislature’s purpose stated that the rent
Under the landlord’s from right receipt paid by inseparable to of rent in the the tenant is the duty provide to fit single-family dwellings of can and habit- context landlord’s
X83
by limiting,
repairs provision of
to author
promoted
the URLTA
premises is best
able
dwellings, the
single-family
parties
separate
ize the
to
into a
case
“enter
its
to
ability
agreement,
landlord to
duties
shift
written
consider
adequate.
(e)
ation,
to
the tenant
contract
subsections
to shift at least some maintenance
562A.15(1
(2).
§
)(e)-(f),
(f).
and
Iowa Code
to
the landlord
the tenant.”
duties
recognize
construction
We
the rule
Cunningham, 16
Urb. L. Ann. at
Such
expressed by
“legislative- intent
an approach
prior
would be consistent with
inclusion,
omission as well as
ex
and
caselaw which
made repairs
tenants
and
thing implies
mention of one
press
charged the
for the labor
landlords
and
not so mentioned.”
exclusion
others
See,
Marini,
e.g.,
materials.
It is not reach the 562A.15(2), still met its nonetheless duty of the of whether the landlord related premises in a statutory duty provide habitability can to fitness and be waived condition. There is no 562A15(2) fit and habitable contract. Iowa Code section repairing dispute in this case without the landlord only authorizes door, not be would premises the leased agree perform will certain that the tenant Id. tasks, fit condition.” “a and habitable al- “specified repairs, maintenance 562A.15(1)(6). suggests terations, remodeling”- premises. and habitable duty provide a fit by an view is advocated academic This per- commenter, repairs if interprets specific- condition is satisfied who *27 im recognition is toward of an costs are tó the ern trend formed, but the shifted in such plied of reasonableness standard tenant. Dennison, agreement. an Mark S. reject approach'. The We this to Con Landlord’s Unreasonable Refusal legal duty surely depends upon scope of a Sublease; Am. Assignment sent to or example, For does its context. an insurer (database 5,§ up Trials Jur. 277 Westlaw duty providing by its defend not meet 2016); Apr. see also In dated Homo-Goff See, billing e.g., the insured. counsel and teriors, Cowden, Inc. v. 350 So.2d Lines, Tank v. Aetna Inc. Leaman Chem. (Ala.1977); Dietz, Laura Hunter 1037-38 Co., F.3d 223 n. Cas. & Sur. al., 49 and Ten et Am. Jur. 2d Landlord Cir.1999). (3d duty to support A a child or (2006); at 905 ant Restatement party not allow the the spouse does 15.2, (Second) § at 100-13. physical obligation provide support authorities, on these we conclude Based or for spouse child the costs. bill the reasonably it the did not act when landlord Likewise, duty think the of the dowe pot prem- of the refused allow the sublease premises provide landlord to habitable to enforce attempted ise when unlaw- may so that a landlord utilize the narrow result, provision ful the lease. As a iii vest duty to in landlord effect in not allowing district court erred dam- right provide up marked monopolistic of the ages a result landlord’s refusal habita services to the tenant maintain premises. sublease allow tenant to interpret If IURLTA were so bility. ed, statutory duty Cleaning the landlord Deductions VI. Automatic From, premises provide Deposits would be habitable Rental Under IURLTA. allowing a landlord to es eviscerated Carpet- A. Automatic Lawfulness obligations through a cape financial well- Cleaning brings This us to Provision. lawyered provision. light lease Apartments cross-appeal on Downtown’s development of history of the landlord- company argues the merits. The the dis law, fairly not think it can tenant we do holding trict court erred automatic legislature intended the concluded carpet-cleaning provision*violated section duty of the landlord to “make áll statutory 562A.12 of the IURLTA. repairs necessary whatever is and do provision This léase reads as follows: premise in a fit put keep throughout building carpets habitable, to be satisfied condition” professionally apart- cleaned each time merely,making repairs shifting,the occupancy. ments turn over Tenants categorical pursuant costs to tenant (effi- agree charge starting to a at $95 agreement. provisions original (6+ ciency) to exceed bed- $225 rooms) being deposit deducted Damages Failure to Permit V. cleaning expira- professional Sublease. tion the Lease. agreement The landlord-tenant 562A.12(3) permission requires authorizes this case only grounds withholding landlord before the sublease three (1) premises. provision deposit: amounts from “[t]o is a silent & rental expressly require remedy payment a tenant’s clause does default in that it or of to the land- act rent other funds due reasonable agreement”; nonarbitrary Although pursuant to the rental fashion. there lord dwelling unit to its authority contrary, mod- restore the “[t]o older
185 jurisdiction A in another at commencement of the ten- court held condition excepted”; carpet cleaning ordinary required wear tear at the conclusion ancy, and expenses and recover incurred of a did not amount to dam lease “tenant “[t]o premises acquiring possession of the from ages, neglect property” waste a tenant” who does not surrender deposit could be from the rental deducted compliance premises in with the vacate the supported by sepa had to be thus agreement. rental Farkas, writing. King rate v. No. 82- 562A.12(3)(a)-(c). 161598, 2076, (Wis.Ct.App. at *2 1983 WL 9,1983). contrast, Indiana, Aug. By carpet-cleaning problem with the appellate court concluded the landlord generates is that it an automatic provision tenants, to require could car steam-clean even deposit rental deduction pets upon termination the lease and of section when none the conditions deduct’cleaning charges from the rental 562A.12(3) example, For have met. beert including pro deposit, charges pay Mary suppose a tenant had Poppins carpet cleaning. fessional Castillo-Cullather Sugar” re- magical “Spoonful her team Pollack, (Ind. 478, 685 N.E.2d v. 483 carpet pristine to a state at the store the Ct.App.1997), abrogated part on other Certainly, an addi- end the leasehold. Mitchell, grounds by v. 695 cleaning Mitchell. carpet tional would be neces- 920, (Ind.1998). Nonetheless, law, still 923 sary. charge would N.E.2d Indiana law, allows the apply. unlike land ' lord deduct breach jurisdiction not the first to ad We are deposit, the lease -from the rental and the providing legality provisions dress the parties free reasoned were for carpet for automatic deductions clean lease the define condition instance, agreements. For lease premises which the had to be restored at Ohio, adopted which has the Uniform also agreement. the conclusion the lease Id. Act, it is Residential Landlord Tenant n. 483 & 4. in a lease provision “well-settled” that a agreement providing for an re automatic modify We the stated statuto decline deposit duction from the rental ry purpose deposits. rental Their behind professional carpet cleaning is unenforcea faithfully purpose is to ensure Co., Chaney Breton Builder 130 ble. v. her or his under the lease executes duties 602, 941, App.3d Ohio 720 943 N.E.2d (de § 562A.6 agreement. See Iowa Code (1998), abrogated part grounds on other deposit “a fining deposit a rental as Co., v. I 89 Ohio Parker &F Insulation performance of a residen money to secure (2000). 261, 972, St.3d N.E.2d 977-79 depos agreement”). tial The rental rental case, said, In an Ohio court another designed it is not to serve an advance as of an affimative show- the absence always payment of amounts that will
ing, by way
that there
itemization
v.
due
the lease.
Steenes MAC
Cf.
specific
carpet,
need
clean the
[land-
LLC,
Mgmt.,
Ill.Dec.
Prop.
lordj’s
improp-
deduction was
unilateral
(finding
(Ill.App.Ct.2014)
N.E.3d
regarding carpet
A
provision
er.
fee,
upfront
that a move-in
“a one-time
cleaning
[the
with
inconsistent
actual
charge,” paid by
the tenant
depos-
provision regarding
Ohio
rental
knowledge that it was nonrefundable was
is unenforceable.
its]
security deposit); Kopp v.
Associated
09AP-719,
Chen,
Realty Corp., No.
Albreqt
App.3d
Ohio
Estates
(Ohio
(1983) (citation omitted).
1150, 1153
Ct.App. Apr.
N.E.2d
WL
at *5-6
2010)
were
(determining
deposit
held
that nonrefundable
rental
characterized
redecorating
fee
not rent
contract
the re
pet fee and
were
as nonrefundable
*29
they
deposits
al
not secure
deposit
because
.did
funded amount of the rental
would
parties,
not
obligations of the
were
intend
by deducting
automatically
be reduced
the
applied
damages,
295,
and
be
toward
640
ed
Ariz.
P.2d
nonrefundable fee. 131
deposit);
from the
857,
(1982).
words,
were not-
In
deducted
859
other
Schaefer
LLC,
Holding,
v.
Gartz
J & J Ass’n
No.
proposition
deposits
for
if rental
stands
the
820,
03-1978,
202876,
-271
2004
Wis.2d
WL
comingled
were
with funds that' the land
4, 2004)
(Wis.Ct.App.
(noting
*5
Feb.
receive,
unqualified right
lord had an
carpet-cleaning
that a landlord’s
fee
deposit
be
the amount
the rental
would
Wisconsin law because
permissible nondiscretionary payment.
by the
reduced
provide that
did not
the cost
IURLTA,
prohibits
The Iowa
from
rental depos
would be deducted
funds
rental
commingling of
landlord
it).
Additionally,
562A.12(2).
§
deposits.
Code
Iowa
inconsis
reasoning
s
is
a
possible
may
It is
landlord
be able
efer'
Scha
scheme,
statutory
tent with
which lim
our
impose
a nonrefundable
on ten
charge
provides
and
deposits
its the uses of rental
carpet cleaning.
for
See
ants
automatic
process
challenging a
as
Co.,
a
for
landlord’s
Stutelberg
Mgmt
v. Practical
o
t
righ
t
them.
325,
737,
serted
retain
Id.
Mich.App.
law,
depos
§ 562A.12.
rental
Under Iowa
(finding
cleaning
a
not
nonrefundable
fee
may only
purposes
its
used for
part
deposit);
of the rental
v.
Holmes
Code
562A.12. A
Mgmt Corp., 542
201- outlined
Iowa
section
Canlen
S.W.2d
may
landlord
not use a tenant rental de
(Tex.Civ.App.1976). Additionally,
posit
any purpose
than
clearly authorizes the deduction of
for
those
statute
v.
carpet-cleaning
deposits
costs from rental
listed in the
Smolen
Dahl
statute.
Ltd.,
necessary
dwelling
Mich.App.
if
unit to mann Apartments,
restore
(1983) (hold
condition at the commencement
338 N.W.2d
894-95
tenancy, beyond
ordinary
ing
may
wear
a
a tenant
withhold
landlord
562A,12(3)(&).
§
deposit
purpose
provid
tear.
Iowa Code
rental
for
any
statute).
for
ed
Under
do,
aWhat
landlord
howev
cannot
562A.12(3),
deposit
“If
or
section
the rental
er,,
impose
carpet-cleaning
is
an automatic
any portion
deposit
is
rental
with
charges
such
from rental
fee
deduct
held for the
of the dwelling
restoration
944;
Chaney,
N.E.2d at
deposit. See
unit,
specify the
the statement shall
nature
at 1153.
Albreqt,
Under
477 N.E.2d
damages.”
The landlord
then
IURLTA,
deposit
“[i]f
rental
necessary to
only
withhold
those amounts
is
for
portion
deposit
a rental
withheld
prior
condi
dwelling
restore
unit
its
unit,”
dwelling,
the restoration
562A.,12(3).
§
tion. Iowa Code
ten
provide
landlord must
and the
notice
opportunity
must
to contest
ant
an
have
provision providing
The carpet-cleaning
562A.12(3).
§
damages.
actual
Iowa Code
for automatic
frbm the rental
deductions
A
contract
landlord cannot
extract
is thus
under law
deposit
unenforceable
notice
opportunity
waiver
above,
the'
stated
and the district
reasons
provisions
contest
when
funds
withheld
upheld.
relating
court’s decision
to it
562A.11,
deposit.
Id.
the rental
provision
we hold the
violates
Since
IURLTA,
arguably
case
we need not
the small
There
one
address
pro-
contrary.
Murphey,
In
v.
funds
claims court’s
determination
Schaefer
result,
that,
penalty
id.
visión was unconscionable.
$200
562A.12(7)
562A.7(l)(a) (discussing
unconscionabili- under
Code section
must
.
responds by
be reversed The tenant
cit
ty).14
Properties,
Ikari
Mason
314 Ill.
Penalty. Apartments
B. Bad-Faith
App.3d
247 Ill.Dec.
731 N.E.2d
challenges
pu-
next
Downtown
$200
(2000).
case,
appel
Illinois
damages the small claims court
nitive
late court assessed double
IURLTA, which the
awarded under the
withholding a
faith
deposit
rental
bad
upheld.
Iowa Code
district
repair
after
cleaning
the tenants
562A.12(3)
return
requires
*30
Id.,
202,
had left- their unit.
Ill.Dec.
247
thirty days
deposit
rental
within
tenant’s
Here,
provides that landlord specifically court not The district did men- by known the land- provision use tion the fees of lead counsel Warnock. prohibited under IURLTA. lord court, appeal On to this tenant seeks an for actual provides The statute attorneys’ award fees lead counsel periodic three months’ not more than “and Warnock. landlord concedes error attorney fees” rent and reasonable preserved on the The landlord was issue. Id.; illegal provision. of an knowing use ai’gues was in the the district court best Downtown, Inc., 880 Apts. see Caruso position to evaluate work counsel 2016). claim, (Iowa No sought by and that the fees lead counsel presented this case has been argues were excessive. The also landlord provision.17 statutory this under jurisdiction court the district lacked claim, hear matter because the Attorneys’ Fees. VIL fees, attorneys’ juris- exceeded the $5000 case, the tenant submitted two this limit of claims Fi- dictional small court. attorneys’ related affidavits nally, the landlord also contends matter was magistrate after the submitted. not a prevailing party tenant was in the submitted affi- counsel Warnock Lead litigation and is therefore entitled Boyer. second-chair counsel did davit. So rejected fees. have We these grounds resisted late- The landlord Thus, only remaining last claims. two granting the fees would ness and sought by issue is whether the fees raised juris- small claims court lack cause excessive, the tenant were as claimed magistrate of the case. Before the diction landlord, reasonable, or as claimed question, rule on the could 562A.12(8). the tenant. See Iowa Code magis- appealed to district and the matter, however, preliminary As a ruling attor- trate enter a on the did question we consider a whether neys’ appeal, fee issue. -On the district required to file in the district court concluded enlarge expand court a motion to attorney by Attor- fee affidavit filed Iowa Rule of Civil 1.904 in or Procedure *33 ney Boyer on preserve Christine June to der the issue. We have held includes sufficient breakdown Iowa chapter [a] that because Code 631 con attorneys’ sought by provision fees Plaintiffs tains no mo express posttrial for can, respect appeals court tions counsel such with to the district argument penalty pro- ample, provision is an 17. There if a landlord utilizes a 562A.11(2) visions of Iowa Code section illegal subject known to be and is thus 562A.12(7) mutually Iowa Code section are penalties Iowa Code section 562A.11(2) exclusive. Iowa Code section is 562A.11(2), expose does that arguably directed at the use of unlawful statu- penalties bad-faith under Iowa Code section tory provisions requires provi- 562A.12(7) as well? This like seems double is sion known the landlord to be unlawful. dipping. parties have not raised the The. 562A.12(7) arguably Iowa Code section is di- question relationship penalty of the between illegal provisions rected not at a lease but 562A.11(2) provisions in Iowa Code disputes instead toward factual associated 562A.12(7) any and section this case. deposits. provi- of rental Each retention event, necessary is to consider the rela- statutory penalties. sion has its own One tionship light disposition of our question legislature whether the intended the grounds. penalty provisions on to be For ex- contested issues cumulative. Rev. Super, 99 Cal. L. at court, available at ineffective. See motions are not posttrial all, is, after “the Midwest 440. Small claims court proceeding. stage of this belongs on emphasis court” people’s where Cooper, 46 Recovery Servs. v. N.W.2d pro litigants. se 1991). simplicity fairness for (Iowa is in a case This Kimble, Kimble v. 264 P.3d 1231-32 as it does not slightly posture, different (Okla.2011). magistrate to the from a appeal involve an discretionary court instead but
district digression, now necessary With that we to this court. from court appeal the district parties turn the issue the have asked us Recovery, howev Midwest We have cited decide, namely, the fees of whether lead er, proposition that there support could, counsel are excessive. we While from a appeal no motions on posttrial on perhaps, appeal, decide issue we judgment. See GE claims court small stage approach think the at this is better Bank, at 539. Money 773 N.W.2d question' attor- remand the Warnock’s ney’s court to allow the district Re- principle embraced Midwest district court in the first instance con- trial covery fully applicable here. The request of the fee sider reasonableness magis- occurred before the matter counsel. lead We review district then The case was this ease. trate attorneys’ court’s award of fees for abuse court. Midwest appealed the district GreatAmerica, 691 of discretion. N.W.2d motion for clear that a Recovery makes result, court at 732. As a the' district when expanded findings -is not available application fee should Warnock’s evaluate chapter case tried under Code remand, in the first instance. the dis- On so, logic, If at 855-57. trict court should further determine the 1.904 is no basis a rule dictates there appellate merits of claim after the court deter- motion district has 606; Ayala, First fees. See 415 N.W.2d appeal. the small mined claims Bank, Denison v. Northwestern Nat. from our caselaw 'and the lack' Aside Crouch, (Iowa 1980). 287 N.W.2d motions posttrial authorization Conclusion.. YID. 1.904(2) 631, grafting rule chapter reasons, For we affirm the the above proceedings into small clainls would be in favor of district court parties in small claims poor policy. The cleaning costs. jurisdiction issue unrepresented by' attor- court are often of the district We reverse the decision caselaw, however, neys. Our demon- on the issue court to the tenant adverse of Civil Procedure that Iowa Rule strates on the repair and liability for the door cases, In close complicated. 1.904 can be permit for failure claim difficulty lawyer has even a skilled deter- apartment. subleasing tenants mining 1.904 motion whether rule should the district decision We also reverse however, may misstep, A result be filed. *34 to the land- punitive damages adverse of of or loss an in waiver a claim even 562A.12(7). Code section lord under Iowa litigants to claims appeal. Requiring small fees, af- attorneys’ of of we Rule On issue the intricacies Iowa understand court as 1.904(2) judgment the district against the firm the cuts Civil Procedure at- of fees awarded to the reasonableness chapter provid- policy Iowa Code for a determina- torney Boyer, but remand for deter- simple procedure a swift and attorney Further, tion fees complexity of reasonable connec- mining disputes. on this work attorney Warnock’s procedure of trial tion is.one reasons case, for claim and for warranty habitability has been consideration implied attorneys’ plaintiffs something fees. Costs are as- who are tenants- and appellate - al- plaintiffs. Downtown. different And Apartments sessed doubt, I though the matter is not free PART, IN REVERSED AFFIRMED majority’s of the matter is believe view PART, REMANDED. IN AND n erroneous several reasons. except All justices First, concur acknowledges, we WATERMAN, MANSFIELD, "consistently interpreted statutes that have JJ., ZAGER, part concur in who the term “costs” alone to exclude use part. attorney dissent in fees. See Weaver Constr. Co. v. Heitland, (Iowa 1984) N.W.2d MANSFIELD, (concurring in Justice (‘We not agree, do that the word dissenting part). part and chapter [in 677] ‘costs’ should be so liberal dissent, part I concur in respectfully fees.”); ly attorney stretched as to include disagree I part with two conclu- because Motors, Zip Turner v. 245 Iowa particular, sions reached the court. (1954) (“[Section I not think claims courts do small can always mean the 625.1] has been held to attorneys’ fees award unlimited without costs, ordinary including attorney regard jurisdictional to the limit. $5000 fees.”). I single am aware con I think Nor do the Iowa Uniform Residen- temporary lacking phrase Iowa statute (IURLTA) Act tial Landlord and Tenant “attorney using fees” while the term illegal for makes it the landlord interpreted “costs” alone has been single-family agree of a home to tenant attorney Why fees as costs. start .award financially responsi- will be , here? . repair for a ble door that is an exterior Second," persuaded I' am not that when during tenancy.. vandalized general assembly enacted the Unified I. Small Claims Jurisdiction. adopt Court Act in it intended to I attorneys’ would hold "that fees count relating caselaw from 1882 and against jurisdictional court, limits of the syste setting old statute Them. statute, provides small claims jurisdictional court. forth the limits the old in. jurisdiction the small claims court has system differently. worded money over those “civil for a (stating-that actionfs] Code 601.2 justice- judgment where the amount controver- of-the-peace jurisdiction courts had “where sy is ... five thousand dollars or less ... in controversy the amount does not exceed ' dollars”). exclusive of interest and costs.” one hundred 631.1(1) (2011). So, question As the majority recognizes, the whole attorneys’ or whether fees are costs not. Act idea the Unified Court was to create important question This is an because system a new better than what' had good goose good what’s for the gone legislature before. And when did gander. eollegé represented If a student so, consciously seems have borrowed legal agency aid can recover her diversity from the federal statute. See 28 from a small (2012) (“The § 1332 U.S.C. district-courts court, suing claims so can a debt collector original jurisdiction shall have of all civil working single indigent parent. in controversy actions where the matter -term, “costs,” $75,000, interpreting We are one exceeds the sum valúe exclu *35 statute, and-costs.....”); one Iowa Code section'63L1. of interest We sive 1972 Iowa 1124, (codified § thing, cannot have the term mean one ch. 60 at Iowa Acts Code
193 easier, (“A expensive procedure” (1973)) pier, civil and less § claim is a 631.1 small parties “need not retain an which the money where action attorney they unless is one wished.” Barnes controversy money amount 258, less, Beauty McCoy, v. 279 exclusive of inter Coll N.W.2d thousand dollars or (Iowa 1979). ”). attorneys’ Plainly, if 259-60 costs... ests and against jurisdictional count fees don’t statute, diversity it the federal Under limit, parties is an incentive use fees understood that attorneys’ was well in small attorneys claims court. And the costs.” separate from “interest and were attorney, generally of ah while presence Jones, See, e.g., Co. v. Mo. State Ins. Life if significant, the matter is tends desirable 134, 199, 202, 133, 54 290 S.Ct. U.S. 78 informality proc undermine (1933); 267, A. 14AA Charles L.Ed. beginning, From eeding.18 very Miller & H. Wright, Arthur R. Edward claims legislature made clear that small and Procedure Cooper, Federal Practice attorneys. See cases don’t need 1972 Iowa ed.2011). (4th 3712, § at 806 So I would (codified 1124, § at Iowa Acts ch. in more inclined to follow the federal be (1973)). § 631.11 diversity terpretations of statute majority’s approach, some guide interpreting Iowa Code Under subject to Trust & v. small claims defendants Peoples 631.1. be See Sav. Bank (Iowa Armstrong, judgments substantial- 297 N.W.2d 373-75 .without —but 1980) protections afforded in district (noting procedural the resemblance between 631.1(1) wording purpose It is Code section court. antithetical diversity potentially small claims court to allow the federal statute applying diversity precedents open-ended attorney-fee. recoveries federal juris- claims .against counts could dwarf the stated small determine when interest limit). jurisdictional the small claims limit. dictional
Furthermore, persuaded I am not original Finally, in the 1972 Uni Act, authority on the court “costs” was out-of-state which fied Court when the word contexts, clearly it Lettenmaier v. Lube particularly used in other did not relies— Connection, Inc., attorneys’ 162 N.J. 741 A.2d include fees. See 1972 Iowa (codified any bearing on this issue. Acts ch. Iow Code —-has (1973)) (“Fees Jersey shall court rule involved 631.6 and costs be New wording from regular civil has different of fees and costs Lettenmaier one-half id., court.”). (quoting See at 593 actions in Iowa’s statute. district ‘When the 6:1-2(a)(1), men multiple Jersey Rule which appears same term in the New times statute, controversy”). only it should have the same tions “the amount same Paye, meaning each time.” State colleagues, I Furthermore,, my unlike 2015). (Iowa give weight minimal even would citation of cases interpret costs the Lettenmaier’s two Iowa Another reason to id. at 594- jurisdictional some miscited small claims statute as because it them. Line, Inc., 415 thing (citing Ayala is that v. Ctr. different (Iowa 1987); Maday v. El goal “a legislature’s sim- N.W.2d 603 furthers maintaining simplicity majority apt phrase: and informali “the 18. The uses the Thus, people’s Village Sup court.” our declined ty procedures.” small claims give adjudi "preclusive small claims effect to Fund, Inc., ply 312 N.W.2d Inc. v. regular district court subsequent cations 1981). (Iowa trials do would inconsistent [because so] *36 view-Stewart, Co., authoriza Sys. repairs form all “unless written N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 1982)). Maday Lettenmaier cited It tion is secured from Landlord.” states of 'statute allow “examining structure City charges that Iowa Maintenance $70 that, concluding and be fees counsel regular per during horn* business hours costs, grouped were with cause such fees per during nights and hour and week $90 Id. at 594. Lettenmai they costs.” were ends, per of hour with a minimum one “refusing to Ayala for er cited consider City an service call. Iowa Maintenance is . determining ju whether attorney fees ego Apartments alter of Downtown be limit had been exceeded risdictional circling The has some three-page lease they separate and events cause are distinct of marks other marks it. Some and of and cannot be giving rise to action cause vicinity foregoing provi- are in of liability is Id. until established.” assessed manager According sions. to the business propositions those at 595. I can’t find Downtown, Apartments of of presence Maday Ayala.19 anywhere in and specific markings these confirmed Making II. Provisions Tenants Lease actually provisions of the lease were re- Responsible Repairing for Costs they signed viewed with the tenants before Third-Party Damaged by Exterior Door court, As it. summarized district Vandalism. “The Court finds no evidence record Apartments Down- The between lease honesty that there was a lack fact in one De Elyse town—on the hand —and the conduct of transaction concerned.” the other Stefano and her housemates —on charge replacement The door and pages De Stefano long. hand—is three a bur- subsequent late stemmed from testified she did read lease before glary that at De occurred Stefano’s resi- it, signing dispute she but does dence in October 2010. De Stefano to its terms. testified she assented She police report with the other tenants filed misrepresented no one what was City Department. Police the lease. report burglary that the had left stated paragraph provides, the lease exterior doorframe and door lock dam- agree for all “Tenants aged, reported two or and the tenants windows, screens, and apartment three as a cans beer as well bottle (in- doors, including exterior unit doors Apartments Down- flavored vodka stolen. vandalism).” cluding random acts repair town was called to door on provides paragraph also “Un- or presumably by October De Stefano 11— negligent, less the Landlord Tenants one her cotenants. damages/re- responsible for cost all windows, screens, doors, carpet, pairs Apartments arranged for Downtown walls, regardless of such whether replace City Maintenance by residents, or damage guests is caused door, charges kicked-in billed and the were Additionally, contains the lease others.” to De and her roommates. The Stefano repair estimated cost for $452-$690 repair replacement total cost replacement entry of a door. prehung $598.46, which included $318.46 replacement land door and four hours provides The lease further $280 Upon receipt charge, one City per labor. this lord’s Iowa Maintenance would clear, wrong give quarrel I how decision 19. To be have no the Lettenmaier Maday happens Maday my colleagues have to cite to summarized credence because Ayala. majority it is Ayala opinion, But their *37 responsible repair be for the of a lessee will housemates sent letter of De Stefano’s by third-party a damaged 2 to Down- door vandalism Apartments November dated during My tenancy. the lessee’s advising and col- town, contesting charge issue, ultimately do not decide this by any leagues damage was not caused they but frame the issue in such one-sided police investiga- the tenants and obligated respond. that I feel to letter,(cid:127)the terms tenant ongoing. In was tion her of the paragraph 30 referenced 562A.15(1) of IURLTA im Section stated, agree “Tenants agreement, which warranty habitability a on the poses apartment win- pay damages to all to 562A.15(1) (2011). § landlord. dows, screen, doors, including exterior and Among things, other the landlord shall van- (including random doors unit acts “[c]omply requirements appli with the dalism).” Yet the said she believed building housing and codes cable .material to unconscionable provision this lease be affecting safety” health and ly “[m]ake and by a court. and thus unenforceable necessary repairs all and do whatever premises in fit keep and a and put responded on Downtown Apartments condition.” id. habitable November 562A.15(1)(a However, )-(&). the duties agreement you By signing the lease (1) of section 562A.15 are' in subsection to- all agree (2): immediately qualified by subsection windows, doors, screens, and apartment single tenant of a fami- The landlord and doors, including including exterior unit writing ly may agree residence If ... vandalism. random acts perform the duties the tenant landlord’s during burgla- broken down door was ” “e specified paragraphs and [re- “/” is consid- ry, the destruction the door lating provi- removal and the waste vandalism..,, though Even ered water, water, heat], hot and sion of and in, during damaged the break door specified repairs, maintenance also tenants, guest of the it and still not tasks, alterations, remodeling, but visitor, the basis o[f] falls into only if is entered transaction guest or they were .a known whether good faith. not_ investigation police re- [I]f added). 562A.15(2)(emphasis §Id. guilty finding party sults argu- damage, colleagues present lengthy for the responsible My that was (2) only than affects why that time would be more as to then we ment subsection (e) charge (f) said for the of subsection person(s) paragraphs happy however, the damage. Until then dam- subsection. not rest words, argument, un- ten- age property according to this fall[s] incurred responsibility single-family the leased ten- der the ant of residence relat- you currently agree any responsibilities At this time assume ants. still 598,46 warranty outstanding implied habitability have an balance account, (e) happen if this your except paragraphs those covered would ultimately rent (/). majority December[’]s still be when does current due, it it not ac- adopt position, comes will accumulate stan- this but does charge. counterar- knowledge mention the dard even late $40.00 guments against this view. principal A of contention between bone interpre- this per- biggest problem with parties is the IURLTA whether gives is that no single- of a of the IURLTA mits lessor the lessee tation also” language writing effect to the after “and family agree home to repairs”' Furthermore, 4.4(2) (2). (setting “specified 'the term See id. subsection (2) seemingly' n presumption forth the entire subsection corre “[t]he i effective”). (1)(6) sponds language paragraph statute is intended requiring the landlord all re “[m]ake language specified “and also Clearly, the *38 necessary is pairs put and do to whatever tasks, alterations, repairs, maintenance keep premises in a and fit and habit remodeling” must refer to' landlord and able condition.” para- set forth in duties other than those 562A.15(1)(&),.15(2). argu Under (e) Otherwise, (f). lan- graphs and by repairs ment majority, offered has guage totally superfluous. would be Driv- something to mean in two different subsec legislature is our point this home that tions the same statute. That seems also,” separator indicating “and used the (indi unlikely. Paye, 865 See N.W.2d at 7 going to also” was what followed “and cating that term the same should have the something preced- different from what be meaning appears multiple when it same Furthermore, is ed it. difficult to con- statute). times in.the same remodeling ceive alterations and removal; provide Oddly, scouring country to after would be waste needed water, heat, water, support hot or if out-of-state its indeed the caselaw inter- only generis applied pretation to the duties sui small claims entire subsection Iowa’s (e) jurisdictional statute, and paragraphs (f). including the afore- case, Jersey majority mentioned New language Equally clearly, the “and also omits pertinent discussion" of out-of-state tasks, specified maintenance alter repairs, though talking caselaw here —even we are ations, remodeling” must relate to and adopted many juris- act about uniform by paragraphs landlord covered duties dictions. (1)(a), )(d). (1)(6), (1)(c), (1 or For one 562A15(2) thing, Existing interpreting is within placed section caselaw URL- TA argument presented the statute and written if it were undermines 562A.15(1) majority. qualifier by to section as whole. In v. Sullivan Subrama Moreover, nian, (Alaska 2000), terminology “specified if the re P.3d 66 the court alterations, tasks, pairs, maintenance and referenced the duties in Alaska’s counter (1)(a), (1)(6), (1)(c), remodeling” did not relate to matters that part paragraphs (1)(d), added, “Barring otherwise be landlord would duties then circum (1)(a), (1)(5), (1)(c), (1)(d), here, or that do exist' paragraphs stances not landlords language super prohibited again totally shifting be from these would duties separate (emphasis fluous. their Id. Under section tenants.” at 69-70 added). IURLTA, footnote, al landlords and can the court then re tenants ways agree things in their various .leas vealed the circumstances under which contrary if agreements citing their are not those duties could be es shifted tasks, “specified repairs, terms of the IURLTA —and there al maintenance terations, “good requirement. remodeling” language ho faith” id. or Alas 562A.9(1) 562A.15(3). (stating counterpart ka’s section Id. “[t]he agree and tenant in a prior include rental 70 n. 8. The court also cited a id., ment, case, prohibited terms conditions Alaska see not which indicated that law”). 562A.15(3) chapter counterpart this The Alaska’s rule section legislature “governs attempts did to include the to shift need landlords’ duties verbiage after “and also” to authorize the such as maintenance common areas thing. counterpart same in the [found Iowa Code tenants,” (citation omitted). 562A.15(1)(6) However, Id. at 308-09 Coburn ] (Alaska Burton, ques- provision P.2d the court found 1990). “vague tion as to specific mainte- delegated nance tasks intended to to” Similarly, in L Investment Co. v. & M upheld the tenant therefore lower Morrison, Or.App. 605 P.2d they court’s fact did determination (1980), Oregon’s the court coun- cited include the matters at issue. Id. at 309- 562A.15(1) said, terpart to section “[I]t is for presumed that the stated rental Also, Court, Island Supreme Rhode and the premises a habitable condition interpreting a statute different somewhat estopped contending oth- landlord is nearly from the-uniform but with iden- act erwise, in the of an ex- at least absence *39 wording part tical in relevant to Iowa Code to press agreement pursuant [Ore- written 562A.15(2),said, section 562A.15(3) gon’s counterpart ].” to section It ... is clear that the landlord Engstrom, In 384 N.W.2d Graber for responsibility shift the performing (N.D.1986), there a scenario like ordinary specified repairs and mainte- of a present the one where the landlord dwelling premises nance of to the rented home) (a ar- single-family mobile residence tenant, provided parties act gued that the lease transferred certain had faith; good parties agree writ- obligations in- habitability to the tenant ing; agreement supported by is ade- cluding obligation repair to a broken consideration; quate agreement and the Discussing coun- window. North Dakota’s is not in of [the violation Rhode'Island 562A.15, terpart to Iowa Code section governing' landlord’s mainte- statute shifting responsibili- court indicated this ability nance and the landlord’s to duties ty would be lawful: away]. contract them 47-16-13.1(1), N.D.C.C., Section Howard, Res. Bd. v. State Water 729 A.2d among things, requires a iandlord curiam). (R.I.1999) (per that comply to dwelling of a unit residential case, properties the state residential leased applicable requirements with the that as to tenants on condition tenants materially building housing codes and responsibility necessary for all sumed the all affecting safety; health and to make for repairs exchange maintenance to repairs necessary is and do whatever from the market value of deduction fair put keep premises a fit and Id. at' the leases did rent. 713. Because condition; to maintain habitable to not “shift cure exist responsibility good working and safe order and condi- applicablé past or violations electrical, sanitary, plumbing, tion all to housing building codes tenants” heating, appli- and other facilities and attempted negotiate to and the state had sup- to supplied required ances be faith, good repair-shifting provisions plied by the landlord. Section 47-16- upheld un challenged provisions were 13.1(4), N.D.C.C., however, allows the der law. Id. at 715. Rhode Island single-family landlord tenant of a Operating I an lock on agree writing agree to that that an residence habitability. perform aspect duties exterior is one tenant the landlord’s door Hiskey, 401 concerning specified repairs, mainte- Brichacek v. (Iowa 1987) (“On tasks, remodeling the record of this case
nance alterations and duty is good if into in we believe the transaction is that landlord entered part as a provide to a front door lock his faith. quar- the IURLTA draws such a fine duty providing habitable believe overall ters.”)- burglary provision line. The IURLTA allows I assume that the And here, by this prohibited chapter “not or other burglaries, most resulted like law,” 562A.9(1), longer being no rule of while damaged side-entry door However, any provision disallowing that “waive[s] Iowa Code secure. 562A.15(2) provide exception rights chap- ... or remedies under this does not 562A.ll(l)(a). ter,” Here, they “specified repairs long so do id. the lease Instead, habitability.” provision merely imposed not relate simply specified repairs. exception duty repair law Furthermore, if to con- parties’ ability parties agree be authorized the would lim- regarding specified repairs tract were responsibility. Significantly, the tenant’s duty perform any ited the landlord’s sought is not a case where the tenant this easy repair habitability, relates perform repair or himself herself many disputes would arise. foresee that permission and was so. denied do repairs door and window relate Some Rather, provided repairs the lease Thus, I habitability; some do not. believe performed by City would Mainte- allows a and a ten- the IURLTA nance the tenants unless obtained written single-family agree ant of a home to authorization the landlord. The ten- *40 perform specified repairs, the tenant will sought ants never such authorization. subject matter is specified where the reasons, For I these would hold that fairly task to performed be can be prohibit law not does landlord and repair. characterized as a That is what single-family a tenant residence from 562A.15(2)says. section agreeing in the the tenant will living single-family Tenants resi- pay repairing damage for the costs of to a position be in a better than a dence from resulting third-party door vandalism not on the scene to safe- landlord who damage during when the lease occurs doors, screens, guard and windows negli- term and is not due to the landlord’s argument harm. Note that outside gence. I provi- further note majority applies to all land- bruited protect sions the IURLTA of single-family lords and tenants resi- other, more serious circumstances than a Thus, lifelong dences. Iowan who rents (autho- door. id. vandalized See 562A.25 upon retiring her home to Florida could rizing part the tenant all or vacate not contract that the renter be re- would premises and terminate the lease sponsible for repairing the doors receive a reduction “the rent when dwell- home. ing premises damaged unit or or de- ultimately stroyed by casualty fire or court finds De Stefa- an extent alternative, ground. enjoyment dwelling no on an unit is narrower sub- stantially impaired”); even if The court reasons that De Stefano see also Am. Jur. might required ‘perform, specified be 2d Landlord and Tenant at 679 562A.15(2), (noting general repairs she can- that even a covenant pay repairs repair “merely required such binds lessee make ordinary repairs, opposed performed when the landlord. While extensive plausible, repairs”).20 this is more I ground do structural case, (Iowa 1992). generally property A lessee of real has an this In the record indi property. in the insurable interest leased cates that the landlord had insurance for the Hostetter, Neubauer 89-90 III. Conclusion. resolution of the agree
I the court’s deduction, carpet-cleaning
automatic attorneys’ fees. penalty,
bad-faith view,
However, my fees are maximum amount in
included $5000 claims.
controversy recoverable small addition, I law not believe Iowa do the ten- provisions requiring
forbids lease single-family
ant of a home that oc- repairing
costs of door vandalism tenancy. If I during the were decid-
curs ease, thorough I affirm the this would I except would
order the district punitive
reverse the decision Attorney remand for consideration subject to the overall
Warnock’s fees $5000
jurisdictional limit. ZAGER, JJ., join
WATERMAN and part
this concurrence dissent
part. *41 ATTORNEY SUPREME COURT
IOWA BOARD,
DISCIPLINARY
Complainant,
Larry STOLLER, Respondent. Alan
No. 15-1824.
Supreme Court of Iowa. 13, 2016.
May repair below the deductible. premises, cost of the door but notes the district found the that au portion or of it. deposit the rental repair provi tomatic carpet-cleaning 562A.12(7), Under section charges sions as as under them well deposit aby The bad faith retention of unconscionable, thereby supporting were landlord, of the rental any portion or damages.16 punitive shall deposit, violation of this section subject damages punitive the landlord to Regardless legality or enforceabil dollars not to exceed two hundred ity underlying provisions, of contract damages.15 to actual addition 562A.12(7) permits an Code section Iowa 562A.12(7). §Id. punitive damages only of for award bad- deposit any por faith of argues The controver- retention that disputes deposit. of the rental IURLTA good-faith in this tion sies case court, deposit. We leave that issue anoth small rental 14. At trial claims wit Apartments day. that ness for Downtown testified er lease, language, notwithstanding the com automatically carpet pany deduct for does not legislature has since amended the sub- 15. term, cleaning at the of the lease but end authorizing punitive for the t carpet assessment of an individualized makes deposit. rental bad-faith retention - words, Apartments -In cleanliness. 4, 97, currently pro- § Iowa ch. It Acts grace, argues it Downtown as a matter that “punitive damages not exceed vides impermissible does not enforce its otherwise monthly payment addition rental twice provision. Both the small claims court 12(7) damages.” Iowa Code 562A. to actual charge an district court treated the as and the (2015). one, finding: automatic we think this is Notably, supported evidence. substantial prohibits un Iowa section 562A.7 an Code Apartments deposit Downtown's statement— agreement. provision in a rental conscionable carpet-cleaning $191 de which included provision provides This a court Code describe the duction —did not condition provision an refuse enforce unconscionable carpet, simply but referred to automatic application to an uncon or limit its avoid charge provision Nor are in the lease. we 562A,7(1)(a). scionable result. persuaded an that a landlord can defend im pen provision imposition There no is charge by arguing proper it have as could provisions in alty for unconscionable different, charge proper sessed -the same in a penalty If a is to be Code section 562A.7. way. upon are not to address the We called provi imposed for use of unconscionable require could a landlord issue whether sion, pursuant sec carpet to Iowa Code cleaning must pay in advance for a tenant to 11(2). charge, separate within the tion 562A. included as (Iowa 1988)). 790, In the retention of de bad-faith does define fiduciary duty, context of bad faith has problematic This is by the landlord. posit including “purposeful been described as can number differ as bad faith mean suggest- of the known on context. See obliviousness facts depending concepts, ent Contractors, impropriety.” Title Ins. Co. v. Cleaning N.J. v. Fed. Austrum 1343,-, Caputo, Inc., 163 N.J. 748 A.2d 2016 WL F.Supp.3d 2016) (“ (S.D.Fla. ‘Bad at *6 (2000). Jan. inconsistently phrase used is an often faith’ there no of bad faith While is definition meanings in has different different IURLTA, is a there definition Johnson, contexts.”); legal Staves v. IURLTA, good good Under faith. (D.C.1946) (noting good A.2d “honesty in. conduct faith fact exact susceptible faith is defini “not. Iowa Code transaction concerned.” tion”). § 562A.6(4). Although the definition good- Code section involving faith Iowa. landlord-tenant cases under. . some 562A.6(4) similar to found deposits, bad faith has been defined rental Code, Uniform there is a Commercial no- “vexatious, broadly including somewhat