Lewis v. Jaeger

• Decision Date: 20 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–0834.,11–0834.
• Citation: 818 N.W.2d 165
• Parties: Umeka LEWIS, Appellant, v. John J. JAEGER, Robert E. Boge, and The City of Dubuque, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

818 N.W.2d 165

Umeka LEWIS, Appellant,

v.John J. JAEGER, Robert E. Boge, and The City of Dubuque, Appellees.

No. 11–0834.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 20, 2012.

Raymond H. Johnson of Johnson Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Leslie V. Reddick of Kane, Norby & Reddick, P.C., Dubuque, for appellees Boge and City of Dubuque.

Cory R. Thein, Dubuque, for appellee Jaeger.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, a tenant brings claims against her landlord, the City of Dubuque, and a city official, asserting that they unlawfully caused her eviction from her apartment. According to the defendants, the eviction occurred because a city housing official, acting pursuant to a city ordinance designed to protect public health and safety in emergency situations, issued a valid oral order directing the landlord to lock out a tenant who, according to the landlord, repeatedly left the water and gas stove running for hours at a time, including periods of time when no one was in the apartment.

The tenant sued the City, the housing official, and her landlord. In her pleading, the tenant alleged that the conduct of the defendants violated a number of her statutory rights under the Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (IURLTA), including those related to eviction, entry onto the premises, and return of security deposits. To the extent the Dubuque ordinance authorized the action of the defendants, the ordinance, according to the tenant, was preempted by the IURLTA. The tenant also alleged the city defendants violated her constitutional rights to due process of law by invading her property right in her apartment without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The tenant further claimed the city defendants violated due process by attempting to enforce an unduly vague ordinance. Finally, the tenant brought a common law claim for conversion of her private property, claiming the landlord took some of her possessions during the eviction process.

After a one-day trial, the district court concluded that the tenant was entitled to the return of her security deposit but denied all other relief. The tenant appealed. For the reasons expressed below, we affirmin part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

This case arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute in Dubuque, Iowa, between tenant Umeka Lewis and landlord John Jaeger. Lewis, who was twenty-one years old at the time of trial, receives housing benefits under Section 8, a federal program to assist low-income persons.¹ Jaeger is a landlord who owns and manages twenty-two apartment units in six buildings in Dubuque.

Lewis and Jaeger entered into a one-year rental agreement beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2009. The agreement required Lewis to pay a $465 security deposit and $465 each month. Her apartment was part of a four-plex unit. Jaeger was aware that Lewis was a participant in the Section 8 program.

Shortly after moving in, Lewis thought she heard bats in the walls of her apartment. She began to run the water for extended periods of time, including overnight, in an effort to scare the bats away. Also, at about the same time, Lewis found the heat in her apartment inadequate. The thermostat which controlled the heat, however, was located in a different unit and thus beyond Lewis's direct control. In order to increase the heat in her apartment, Lewis turned on her gas stove and opened the oven door. She left the gas stove on with the door open for several hours at a time, including while she slept.

After receiving complaints from other tenants in the apartment building that there was no hot water, Jaeger investigated and determined that Lewis was running the water and heating the apartment with her oven. Jaeger told Lewis to stop, leaving several notes for his tenant. One note stated: “Umeka! Don't pull that shit ever again. [You] can leave whenever you want. Call me.... [You are] being charged for the water [and] heat you used!!” A second note declared:

Umeka,

Here's the deal, if you leave before this lease you can't get housing for [one] year.

If I have to evict you[,] you can't get housing for [three] years.

If you pay for all the charges to the gas [and] water, you can stay!

Otherwise you will be evicted. They will turn the heat up if you are cold. You are running everyone out of hot water.

Your case worker Karen knows about all of this.

Your choice,

John

Lewis ceased running the water and the gas stove.

The winter of 2008–2009 was uneventful. During the spring of 2009, Lewis called the City complaining about bats. Robert Boge, the City's housing inspector supervisor, inspected the premises. He found no evidence of bats and could not find how bats could enter the apartment.

In late September 2009, Lewis told Jaeger that she intended to move to Florida. She asked Jaeger to refund her security deposit so that she could pay an anticipated security deposit for a new apartment. Jaeger declined to make the refund.² At about this time, Lewis again began to heat her apartment with the oven and to leave the water running for extended periods of time. On several occasions during late September or early October, Jaeger entered Lewis's apartment to turn the gas stove and water off. According to Jaeger, Lewis's response was to simply turn the water and the gas stove back on.

Lewis consulted with an attorney at Dubuque Legal Aid on October 7. Her primary concern was obtaining the security deposit from Jaeger. The fact that Lewis was consulting with a lawyer was a reflection of the deteriorating relationship between Lewis and Jaeger.

Jaeger, too, was looking for outside help with the situation. On October 8, Jaeger telephoned Boge. Jaeger testified that he informed Boge that Lewis would turn on the water and the gas stove and leave them on unattended for extended periods of time. Jaeger further told Boge that he could not turn off the gas and water to Lewis's apartment without also turning off the gas and water to the other apartments in the building. Jaeger claimed that Boge then issued an order to Jaeger to lock the doors to Lewis's apartment. It is undisputed that Boge did not talk with Lewis or attempt to contact her prior to making this oral order.

Jaeger changed the locks on Lewis's apartment. He also gathered her minimal belongings—an air mattress, a fan, and an alarm clock—and placed them outside the apartment. Jaeger then called Lewis on her cell phone and told her he had changed the locks and removed her belongings from the apartment.

Lewis came to the apartment and gathered her belongings. She called the Dubuque police, asserting that some of her belongings were missing. The Dubuque police arrived and investigated, but the record does not reveal any further action taken at that time by law enforcement authorities.

On October 9, Lewis met with Alex Kornya, a legal aid lawyer, to discuss her plight. Kornya electronically sent a letter to Jaeger claiming that he had evicted Lewis in violation of a provision of the IURLTA, specifically Iowa Code section 562A.26 (2009). In the letter, which was dated October 9, Kornya stated that Lewis was terminating her tenancy as of the date of the letter and demanded the return of her security deposit by Monday, October 12, at 5:00 p.m. Kornya indicated that if the amount was not paid, a small claims action would be filed demanding the security deposit and damages related to her illegal eviction.

On October 12, Boge prepared a handwritten memorandum of the order which was the basis of a more formal typed order. The handwritten order, backdated to October 8, stated: “Landlord is ordered to ... change the locks on the unit.... Tenant is leaving gas stove unattended and letting the hot water run unattended. This is endangering the lives of other occupants of the building.”

Based on the handwritten order, city staff prepared a more formal document entitled, “NOTICE TO VACATE.” The document consisted of a cover-page letter and an attachment. The cover page, addressed to Jaeger, stated that a “housing inspection” had been performed on the apartment. The second page of the notice, listing “expected repairs,” stated that, pursuant to Dubuque City Code section 6-6-4(B)(3):

LANDLORD IS ORDERED TO CHANGE THE LOCKS ON THE UNIT AT 414 1/2 LORAS BOULEVARD. TENANT IS LEAVING GAS STOVE ON UNATTENDED AND LETTING THE HOT WATER RUN UNATTENDED. THIS IS ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF THE OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING.

APPEAL RIGHTS, PLEASE NOTE:

ANY PERSON HAVING ANY RECORDED TITLE OR LEGAL INTEREST OR ANY OCCUPANT HAVING BEEN SERVED A NOTICE AND ORDER, MAY APPEAL FROM THE NOTICE AND ORDER OF ANY ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO THE HOUSING CODE APPEALS BOARD, PROVIDED THE APPEAL IS MADE IN WRITING AS PROVIDED IN THIS CODE, AND FILED WITH THE CITY MANAGER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND ORDER, OR ACTION.

FAILURE TO APPEAL WILL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF ALL RIGHTS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER.

Boge did not leave a copy of the notice on the door of Lewis's apartment, nor did Boge mail or otherwise attempt to provide a copy of the notice to Lewis. In other words, he did not “nail and mail” the notice to achieve service on the tenant.

Lewis subsequently filed an action against Jaeger, Boge, and the City of Dubuque. Counts I through IV of the petition alleged Jaeger illegally retained Lewis's security deposit, unlawfully entered Lewis's apartment, converted Lewis's property, and illegally evicted Lewis.³ Count VI alleged Jaeger, Boge, and the City of Dubuque acted in concert to deprive Lewis of due process under the Iowa and Federal Constitutions. Specifically, Lewis argued that section 6-6-4(B)(3) of the Dubuque City Code is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied because it is not reasonably calculated to give adequate notice or a hearing. Lewis also asserted the ordinance is vague,...