*1 force removal of a lien noted on the of title for an automobile which PETERSON, certificate Appellant, L. Joan husband, jointly with her Lee she owned purported Peterson. This lien arose from COUNTY POLK execution which had been issued for an TREASURER, Appellee, satisfying judgment against purposes of Lee Peterson. On consideration of the ar- Strand, Intervenor-Appellee. Dorothy guments presented appeal, on this re-we judgment of court. verse the the district 1981, intervenor, Strand, Dorothy In ob- judgment against Lee tained a Peterson $30,000. 1986, Strand, in

excess of In judgment, that caused a effort to collect of execution to be issued to Polk writ County was directed to on Sheriff who titled in the name a 1984 Ford automobile L. Peterson. of Lee A. Peterson or Joan sheriff, in a document entitled a notice County garnishment, requested the Polk Treasurer to note the lien of on the certificate of title to the pos- in the 1984 Ford. That document was en- session of another lien holder whose was noted as a first lien cumbrance title. receiving request, the

Upon the sheriff’s from the title certificate treasurer obtained lien holder and noted on the title the first Dorothy a second lien Strand was respect to the These actions with holder. title undertaken without certificate of were her knowledge husband. aware of the became title the certificate of attempted to refinance the vehicle with first lien holder. learning purported

Upon of intervenor’s action, alleg- lien, plaintiff commenced the sole owner of ing that she was had no own- and that Lee Peterson claimed, ership therein. She also alternative, that, if her did husband Oliver, Moines, appel- D. Des Arvid car, interest in the have some lant. no lien legally infirm and therefore created Douglas Fulton K. Boesen and A. Clare on the cer- might properly be shown Lillis, Connolly, O’Malley, Hansen & Ol- requested an order tificate of title. She son, Moines, intervenor-appellee. Des to remove compelling the title. The dis- intervenor’s lien from any trict court refused to accord CARTER, relief. Justice. Peterson, by plaintiff on this

Plaintiff, In the issues raised appeals L. from Joan her claim that seeking appeal, she has abandoned judgment in an action an adverse *2 454 quired of the she was the sole owner vehicle. under (a) rule 260 (b) subsection or challenge

Although does not the taken, she validi- have been there is no any pur- lien for 400.11, ty of 761 Administrative Code pose. Iowa The record also reflects that the sher- levy provides may which that “a sheriffs iff failed to complywith requirements the security a be noted as a interest on certifi- (1987) levying Iowa Code section 626.32 desires,” cate of title if the sheriff so jointly property. owned court This has that, asserts as a condition for notation of recognized that no enforceable lien can be regulation, a lien under that administrative against jointly personal owned levy there first be a valid of execu- must property provisions unless the of that stat- against motor tion the vehicle. She con- Tiedemann, ute are followed. Whitaker v. that, case, present the sheriff tends 901, 904, 200 Iowa 205 N.W. 469 statutory proce- certain failed to follow levy. required dures for a valid levy Because there nowas valid levy of a of execution on a The lien by plaintiff automobile owned and her hus- regard motor exists without to no band, the notation of a levy on the certifi- of title. This re tation on the certificate requested cate of title should be voided as provision the in sult flows from plaintiffs in action. The (1987) recognizes the section 321.47 district court is reversed. The case is re- validity by operation of transfers of law manded to that court for an directing order through execution sales. There can be no county that the treasurer cause the nota- levy. execution sale without a tion of challenged lien which has to be removed from the certificate of title. protect pur in effort Perhaps chasers and lenders who have become con REVERSED AND REMANDED. exclusively relying ditioned to on certifi purposes discovering cates of title for All except Justices concur SCHULTZ vehicle, against a motor the encumbrances HARRIS, JJ., specially. and who concur department transportation promulgated SCHULTZ, 761 Iowa Administrative Code 400.11. (concurring specially). Justice require That rule but does not a reached, While I concur in the result I sheriff has levied on a who motor vehicle to majority the opinion neatly believe side- request that the lien thus established be steps important and fails to a answer more noted on the vehicle’s certificate of title. present issue that will still be on remand regu To the extent that this administrative and majority needs to be addressed. The lation authorizes notation aof of exe challenge indicates that certificate, presupposes cution on the it validity of 761 Iowa Administrative levy. that there has been valid Code 400.11. In its decree the trial court asserting in is correct that in clearly adopted intervenor’s contention that present complet- case no valid this rule could judg- be utilized to note a ed on the 1984 Ford automobile. The ment lien appeal plaintiff on a car title. On levying record reflects that officer urges authority noting that there is no proce- comply made no effort to with the lien as a interest dures for a under Iowa Rule of valid I majority’s motor vehicle. believe that the (a) (b). CivilProcedure 260subsection or failure to discuss this issue inference merely sheriff sent a notice of the outstand- approves practice suggests and ing (incorrectly entitled notice of incorrectly sheriffs can continue to note garnishment) treasurer with judgment liens on certificates of title as request that the latter officer cause a lien long they comply procedures as to be noted on the certificate of title. for a valid under Iowa Rule of Civil 260(a) (b). Procedure I expressly provides Rule 260 that “no lien would hold that compliance is created until this rule cannot be utilized on a with one [the procedural completing levy methods of on lien unless it involves a personal property].” steps Until the re- tion. provides authority for the

Section and specifi- COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL cally refers the Uniform Commercial AND THE ETHICS CONDUCT OF Code, chapter Code article 9. ASSOCIATION, BAR IOWA STATE *3 321.50(5). applies Article 9 § Complainant, security interest, tions intended create a papers, sales of account chattel and se- Jr., BAUDINO, Respondent. Robert J. curity by interests contract. (1987). spe- 554.9102 Transactions Code § article cifically excluded from this include (other right represented by judgment 21, “a 1990. right pay-

than a taken on a 16, April 1990. As Corrected collateral).” ment which was Iowa Code Rehearing April 20, 1990. Denied 554.9104(h) Thus, sher- § Amended Petition for Rehearing treasurer, garnishes the section iff 321.50 May Denied provide the with authori- ty to note a title

eo-owned debtor. upon the appli-

The trial court also relied

cation of administrative rule in its

ruling. It is true this rule

sheriffs to be noted as a

interest on certificate of title. The con-

cluding sentence in rule states: “This implement

rule is intended to

section 321.50.” While an administrative valid, presumed a rule

rule is must be legislative with

consistent enactments. Dep’t

Fernandez v. Iowa Human Servs. 1985). (Iowa 375 N.W.2d Conse-

quently, to be consistent section 321.- only apply rule 400.11 must when the judgment growing

sheriff’s involves a

out enforcement of a inter- interpretation

est. This follows rule- express language. Any

maker’s in- other

terpretation legislative would invade the

fiat to address these issues. The rule application

has no to a lien ob- in a tort

tained action. only

I therefore concur result ar- by the majority. at

rived