Article Introduction
The Iowa Mechanic’s Lien Statute started 150 years ago with the premise that improvements to land stand as security for the workers who built the improvement. The theory and purpose of a mechanic’s lien statute is to protect persons who have supplied labor or material for the construction, improvement, or repair of a building or other structure by giving the lienholders security independent of their contractual remedies against the owner of the property, if any. The mechanic’s lien claimant’s rights are designed to prevent the owner of land from retaining the benefit of services of goods of other persons without paying for them. The statute is based on the principle that the mechanic’s lien claimant has materially increased the value of an owner’s real property and is entitled to look to the property as security for his efforts.
The mechanic’s lien is a statutory lien and is not recognized in equity absent statutory authorization. Mechanic’s liens and equitable liens, nevertheless, share several common characteristics. Both types of liens are essentially remedial interests rather than ownership interests in property. In other words, these liens are characterized by the holder’s right to collect a debt by forcing a judicial sale of the property subject to the lien rather than by any right of the holder to possess and use the property. The right to foreclose and the lack of a right to possess the property distinguish these liens from other types of property interests. Additionally, the enforcement of mechanic’s liens is subject to equitable principles, as is the enforcement of equitable liens. One provision of chapter 572 explicitly recognizes the authority of judges to exercise their discretion in determining available remedies. The Iowa Supreme Court has mandated that the mechanic’s lien statute be interpreted to effect its equitable purposes. Furthermore, the standard of review of district court decisions involving chapter 572 is de novo, as is the standard of review for other entity cases.
The statute’s evolving set of rules reflects that construction remains a risky business and costs often cannot be accurately known when a job starts. The legislative changes during the last 20 years shift risk away from owners of property to contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, presumably because construction companies are more familiar with and better able to protect themselves from the financial risks of construction. The legislative changes since 1980 substantially curtail the mechanic’s lien remedy for almost all contractors.