When a case involves no dispute over the facts, and the parties admit everything necessary for a judgment, the court is able to make a decision without too much trouble. That pretty much sums up this case. Here, a plumbing contractor filed a petition to foreclose on a filed and recorded mechanic’s lien in the amount of $5,000 plus interest for work he did on a house owned by the defendant and the defendant’s late brother. The defendant admitted that he owned the house, that the work was done by the contractor, and that the defendant and his brother hired the contractor to do the work.
The contractor moved for summary judgment based on the admissions, and attached an affidavit explaining that the work was done pursuant to an agreement for the now deceased brother to complete drywall installation for the contractor, which didn’t get completed because the defendant’s brother died. After the brother’s death, the contractor spoke to the defendant and was assured that he would be paid for his work. The contractor sent an invoice to the defendant, but it was not paid, so the contractor filed a mechanic’s lien. The contractor asked the court to decide the case and grant the contractor a judgment in the amount requested because there was no dispute about the facts necessary to prove the contractor’s claim.
In resistance to the contractor’s motion, the defendant argued that his brother and the contractor had an oral agreement for a cash payment and offsetting labor. He attached three exhibits for estimates he alleged showed the costs necessary to finish duct work the contractor promised to do and to fix the mistakes the contractor made on the plumbing work. He did not provide any affidavits or other evidence.
The trial court held a hearing and granted the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, and awarded the contractor a judgment in the amount requested, plus 18% interest. The court found that the defendant’s assertions were not supported by affidavit and the exhibits provided were unrelated to any work that was the subject of the contractor’s claim. There were, therefore, no facts disputing the contractor’s claims.
The defendant appealed, and argued for the first time on appeal that the trial court should not have ordered 18% interest on the judgment.
The appellate court affirmed, noting that unsupported allegations do not create a question of fact when resisting a motion for summary judgment and that the contractor proved his case. The court declined to review the award for interest because there was no record of the legal arguments being presented to or addressed by the trial court. Because the defendant did not take the necessary steps to allow the trial court to rule on the arguments presented on appeal, the issue was not able to be reviewed.
So what’s the “take-home” lesson from this case? This case shows the importance of ensuring all factual allegations are supported by sworn affidavit or testimony. The case also reminds litigants to ensure they take steps to get a legal ruling on each issue from the trial court to properly preserve an issue for appeal. Cusick v. Scott, No. 2-005/10-1777 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2012).