Kent v. Employment Appeal Bd., 92-668
| Decision Date | 21 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-668,92-668 |
| Citation | 498 N.W.2d 687 |
| Parties | Myra S. KENT, Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD, Job Service of Iowa, and Quality Chef Foods, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Gary J. Shea of Shea Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
William C. Whitten, Des Moines, for appellee Employment Appeal Bd.
Dennis Currell of Tom Riley Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee Quality Chef Foods, Inc.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and SCHULTZ, CARTER, NEUMAN, and SNELL, JJ.
The issue is whether a petitioner who prevails on a petition for judicial review in obtaining unemployment benefits is entitled to attorney fees and costs from the respondents. Petitioner, Myra Kent, appeals a district court's ruling denying her motion to require the respondents, the Employment Appeal Board and the employer, Quality Chef Foods, Inc., to pay attorney fees and costs. We affirm.
Kent applied for and was denied unemployment benefits by the Employment Appeal Board. Kent then filed a petition for judicial review. The district court reversed the board's decision denying Kent unemployment benefits and remanded the case for the computation of benefits. In an unpublished decision, we affirmed the district court. Following the district court's decision, Kent, as the prevailing party, filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. The district court denied the motion. Kent has appealed.
Iowa Code section 625.29(1) (1991) provides:
1. Unless otherwise provided by law, and if the prevailing party meets the eligibility requirements of subsection 2, the court in a civil action brought by the state or an action for judicial review brought against the state pursuant to chapter 17A other than for a rule-making decision, shall award fees and other expenses to the prevailing party unless the prevailing party is the state. However, the court shall not make an award under this section if it finds one of the following:
....
d. The action arose from a proceeding in which the role of the state was to determine the eligibility or entitlement of an individual to a monetary benefit or its equivalent or to adjudicate a dispute or issue between private parties or to establish or fix a rate.
We agree with the district court that section 625.29(1)(d) precludes an award of attorney fees and costs in this case. This is an action to obtain unemployment benefits. The state's role is to determine whether or not a claim for unemployment benefits is valid. See Iowa Code §§ 10A.601 and 96.6. In addition, Iowa Code section 96.18 provides:
Benefits shall be deemed to be due and payable under this chapter only to the extent provided in this chapter and to the extent that moneys are available therefor to the credit of the unemployment compensation fund, and neither the state nor the division of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. City of Estherville
...in a written contract." Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm'n , 774 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Kent v. Emp't Appeal Bd. , 498 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa 1993) (per curiam)). While the general rule is that attorney fees are not recoverable absent a statute or contractual provision, th......
-
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n
...as damages in the absence of a statute or a provision in a written contract.’ " Botsko , 774 N.W.2d at 845 (quoting Kent v. Emp't Appeal Bd. , 498 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa 1993) ). When assessing whether attorney fees are allowed under a civil rights ordinance enacted pursuant to Iowa Code sec......
-
Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Com'n
...they "are generally not recoverable as damages in the absence of a statute or a provision in a written contract." Kent v. Employment Appeal Bd., 498 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa 1993). Such statutory authorization must be expressed and "must come clearly within the terms of the statute." Thorn v. ......
-
Seeberger v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm'n
...as damages in the absence of a statute or a provision in a written contract.’ " Botsko , 774 N.W.2d at 845 (quoting Kent v. Emp’t Appeal Bd. , 498 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa 1993) ). "Our demanding approach is consistent with cases in other jurisdictions which reject awarding statutory attorneys......