Jack Moritz Co. Management v. Walker, 87-865

Citation429 N.W.2d 127
Decision Date21 September 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-865,87-865
PartiesJACK MORITZ COMPANY MANAGEMENT and Place 35 Apartments, Appellees, v. Margaret WALKER, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Lloyd R. Bergantzel, Council Bluffs, for appellees.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and SCHULTZ, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and SNELL, JJ.

SNELL, Justice.

Defendant, Margaret Walker, appeals the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Jack Moritz Company Management (Moritz) and Place 35 Apartments, rendered by the small claims court and affirmed by the district court in this forcible entry and detainer action. Walker asserts these courts erred in their application of Iowa Code chapter 562A (Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act) and in their application of pertinent federal laws and regulations. She also contends she was denied due process by the district court judge's reliance on the bench notes of the small claims court magistrate, in lieu of issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This case was tried in equity, so our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. We give weight to the fact findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(7).

As an initial matter, we note the judicial magistrate and the district court are not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in small claims actions. The magistrate shall, however, "make detailed minutes of the testimony of each witness and append the exhibits or copies thereof to the record." Iowa Code § 631.11(3) (1985). These minutes should be legible, of course, for the purpose in making them is to provide a record for appellate review. The magistrate shall also render judgment "based upon applicable law and upon a preponderance of the evidence." Iowa Code § 631.11(4) (1985). Although the magistrate need not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, we believe it is necessary to briefly state the reasons for reaching a particular conclusion. Similarly, it is incumbent upon the district court, when rendering an appellate decision pursuant to section 631.13(4)(a), to state its reasons for reaching that decision. The facts in this case are not disputed and the bench notes of the magistrate are sufficient for our de novo review. See Sunset Mobile Home Park v. Parsons, 324 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 1982).

Place 35 is a for-profit, federally subsidized housing project which is privately owned. It is managed by Moritz; Walker, who qualifies for a federal rental subsidy, is a tenant. On December 26, 1986, electrical service was disconnected to Walker's apartment due to her failure to pay the bill. That same day, Moritz sent Walker a notice the disconnection was a violation of her lease. This notice, pursuant to Iowa Code section 562A.27(1) (1985), informed Walker her lease would terminate in thirty days unless she remedied the breach within fourteen days. A footnote in the notice, however, informed Walker she had only 72 hours to have electrical power restored to her apartment. Electrical service was reconnected on December 29, 1986, within this 72-hour deadline. Nonetheless, Moritz sent Walker a letter on December 29 notifying her that her lease was being terminated effective February 28, 1987, due to the electrical service disconnection and unspecified "continued damages to the various apartments [she had] rented at Place 35." When Walker refused to vacate the apartment in March 1987, plaintiffs filed a forcible entry and detainer action. After a hearing on March 19, judgment was entered in favor of Walker for possession of the apartment. This judgment was not appealed.

On March 18, however, electrical service was again disconnected to Walker's apartment. Service was reconnected that same day. In response to this disconnection, on March 25 Moritz sent Walker another lease violation notice informing her that her lease would terminate in thirty days unless she remedied the breach within fourteen days. An attachment to this letter requested Walker to also provide information regarding recertification for her rental subsidy.

On April 3, 1987, the resident manager of Place 35 refused to accept Walker's tender of rent for April. Instead, he took $55.00 of the $117.00 owed and gave Walker a receipt for rent paid April 1-14. That same day, Walker received a notice informing her that her lease was terminated effective April 18 due to the second disconnection of electrical service within a six-month period. Pursuant to this notice, plaintiffs brought the present forcible entry and detainer action on April 21, 1987. The small claims court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the district court affirmed. We then granted Walker's application for discretionary review. Iowa Code § 631.16 (1985).

The plaintiffs assert termination of the lease pursuant to the April 3 notice was in accordance with Iowa Code section 562A.27(1) (1985), which provides in pertinent part:

If substantially the same act or omission which constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement upon at least fourteen days' written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement.

Walker asserts the fact she remedied the breach before she received any notice from the plaintiffs nullified any right they might have had to terminate her lease for that breach. Walker also contends the plaintiffs waived their right to terminate her lease under the language quoted above from section 562A.27(1) by sending her the March 25 notice, which afforded her the opportunity to remedy the electrical service...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Mart v. Mart
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 2012
    ...of a lease will avoid a forfeiture.” Beck v. Trovato, 260 Iowa 693, 150 N.W.2d 657, 659 (1967); see also Jack Moritz Co. Mgmt. v. Walker, 429 N.W.2d 127, 130 (Iowa 1988) (noting that forfeitures are not favored in law or equity).A. Was section four of the lease violated? The landlords conte......
  • AHEPA 192-1 Apartments v. Smith, 1-857 / 11-0167
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2011
    ...in section 648.18.); McElwee v. DeVault, 255 Iowa 30, 38, 120 N.W.2d 451, 456 (1963);5 see generally Jack Moritz Co. Mgmt. v. Walker, 429 N.W.2d 127, 130 (Iowa 1988) ("[I]n order to terminate a lease, the lessor must manifest its intent to do so by some clear and unequivocal act."). The dat......
  • In re Watts
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • November 12, 2013
    ...terminate a lease, a landlord is required to "manifest its intent to do so by some clear and unequivocal act." Jack Moritz Co. Mgmt. v. Walker, 429 N.W.2d 127, 130 (Iowa 1988). Bird sent Debtors a letter, as required by the lease, giving Debtors notice of default and stating that if Debtors......
  • City of Cedar Rapids v. Leaf
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • August 31, 2018
    ...give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, particularly when it comes to the credibility of witnesses. Jack Moritz Co. Mgmt. v. Walker , 429 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Iowa 1988). Leaf argues that the only eyewitnesses to the event, Leaf and Heeren, both testified that weather conditions were......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT