### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 14

– 0820
Filed May 6 , 2016

ELYSE DE STEFANO, Appellant,

vs.
APTS. DOWNTOWN, INC., Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Nancy A. Baumgartner , Judge

.

A tenant appeals and a landlord cross

- appeals a district court ruling affirming in part and reversing in part a small claims court
decision in a residential landlord

– tenant dispute. AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART , AND REMANDED.

Christopher S. Warnock, Iowa City, and Christine E. Boyer, Iowa City, for appellant.

Robert M. Hogg and James W. Affeldt of Elderkin & Pirnie, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids , and C. Joseph Holland, Iowa City, for appellee.2
APPEL, Justice.
This case is a landlord

– tenant dispute that was initially tried as a small claims matter. The case presents a preliminary question of first impression, namely, whether an award of attorneys’ fees should be considered as part of the “amount in controversy” for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the small claims court. If there is subject matter jurisdiction, the case includes several important issues under the
Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (IURLTA), including ( 1) whether a landlord may enter into a contract with a tenant that requires the tenant to assume the cost of making repairs necessary to maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition, ( 2) whether a landlord can refuse to approve a sublease based upon the refusal of the tenant to assume the cost of maintaining the premises in a fit and habitable condition, ( 3) whether a landlord may automatically deduct a fee for carpet cleaning at the conclusion of the lease term, and ( 4) whether statutory punitive damages are available for willful violation
of the IURLTA in this case.
The landlord rented a four

- bedroom home to four students in the college community of Iowa City. An exterior door and door lock to the premises were damaged due to third

- party vandalism, requiring repair in order to maintain a fit and habitable premises. When the landlord was informed of the damaged door, the landlord repaired it but billed the tenants for the cost. The tenants refused to pay. When the tenants subsequently sought to sublease the apartme nt for two summer months, the landlord refused to approve the sublease on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay for the repairs and the penalties assessed for nonpayment. The tenants still refused to pay. As a result, the landlord3 refused to appr ove the sublease , and the premises was vacant for the last
two months of the lease term. At the conclusion of the lease term, the landlord then withheld the
tenants’ rental deposit. The landlord withheld the rental deposit by asserting that ( 1) the tenan ts owed the landlord for the cost of repairing the damaged door, ( 2) the tenants incurred penalties under the lease for failing to timely pay for the damaged door , ( 3) the tenants were automatically obligated to pay the landlord for the cost of cleaning th e carpet upon their surrender of the premises at the end of the lease term regardless of the condition of the carpet, and ( 4) the tenants owed the landlord various other relatively minor fees and costs of no relevance to this appeal. One of the tenants, E lyse De Stefano, sued in small claims court, claiming that the landlord improperly withheld the rental deposit. The magistrate held for the tenant on most issu es and awarded damages of $4720

. The magistrate did not award attorneys’ fees to De Stefano
bec ause no attorney fee affidavits were filed. The landlord appealed to
district court. On appeal, the district court upheld some but not all of the magistrate’s decision. The district court concluded that under the terms of the lease, the landlord could ch arge the tenant for the replacement of the exterior door that had been vandalized by a person or persons unknown. The district court also found the landlord properly refused to allow the proposed sublease in light of the tenant ’ s refusal to pay for the

ex terior door. As a result, the tenant w as liable to the landlord for rent during the two summer months when the premises was vacant. The district court found, however, that the landlord’s automatic deduction
from the rental deposit for carpet cleaning vio lated the IURLTA and that4 certain late fees imposed by the landlord were improper. In the end, the
district court awarded De Stefano $651.54 for the balance of the deposit improperly withheld and $200 in statutory punitive damages. After trial, the attorn eys for De Stefano sought fees under the terms of the IURLTA and submitted two separate fee affidavits supporting
the fee claim s . The district court awarded $1160 in attorneys’ fees, the sum claimed in a fee affidavit submitted by attorney Christine Boyer

. The district court declined to award attorneys’ fees claimed in a fee affidavit submitted by attorney Christopher Warnock for $5466. Both parties appealed, and we granted discretionary review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court on tenant’s appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s ruling on the landlord’s cross

- appeal. We reverse
and remand the case to the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. In July 2010, four University of Iowa students

— Elyse De Stefano, Hillary Block, Meghan Crotty , and Jennifer Connell y
— rented a four

bedroom home in Iowa City from Apts. Downtown, Inc., ( Apartments
Downtown ) under a written lease agreement. The period of th e lease was from July 31, 2010 , to July 26, 2011. The collective rent was $1635 per month, and the tenants paid a rental deposit of one month’s rent. The preprinted lease contained seventy tightly

- spaced paragraphs featuring many subparts and considerable detail. In paragraph 30 the lease provided, “ T enants agree to pay for all damages to the apartment windows, screens, and doors, including exterior unit doors (including random acts of vandalism).” The lea se also provided in paragraph 33,
“U nless the Lan dlord is negligent, Tenants are responsible for the cost of all damages/repairs to windows, screens, doors, carpet, and walls,5 regardless of whether such damage is caused by residents, guests or
others.” Additiona lly, the lease contained a $452

– $690 estim ated cost
for the repair or replacement of a pre hung entry door. The lease further provided that Iowa City Maintenance would perform all repairs “unless written authorization is secured from [the] Landlord.” It stated that Iowa City Maintenance charges $7 0 per hour during regular business hours and $90 per hour during nights and weekends, with a minimum of one hour per service call. Iowa City Maintenance is an alter ego of Apartments Downtown. Furthermore, the lease included an automatic charge for carpet cleaning at the conclusion of the lease term. Specifically, the lease stated
as follows: The carpets throughout the building are professionally cleaned each time apartments turn over occupancy. Tenants agree to a charge starting at $95 (efficiency) not to exceed $225 (6+ bedrooms) being deducted from the deposit for professional cleaning at the expiration of the Lease. The four student tenants, including De Stefano, took possession and paid the regular rent on a monthly basis for the duration of the
leas e, including for the months of June and July, 2011 after failing to receive Apartments Downtown’s approval for a sublease. On August 25, 2011, the student tenant whose forwarding address had been provided to the landlord received a “Security Deposit Statem ent 2011” 1 from Apartments Downtown detailing the following charges to the
tenants’ rental account: Carpet Cleaning: $ 191.00 Cleaning Charges: $ 280.00

1 This opinion follows Iowa Code section 562A.12 (3) in referring to this as a “rental deposit,” but we consider any reference to a “security deposit” to be synonymous.6 Past Due Rent & Fees on Acct: $ 1,308.45 Lawn Clean Up: $ 60.00 Screens (Kitchen, BR 2): $ 150.00 Blinds (BR 2, 4): $ 99.00 Removal & Disposal of Tenants Items (Bed mattress in front lawn): $ 50.00 Total Deductions (

- ) $ 2,138.45 Total Due : $ (503.45) The past

- due rent and fees in the amount of $1308.45 consisted of charges of $210 for lawn care in June 2011; $598.46, the total cost for a replacement exterior door; $150 of late fees for failure to timely pay for the replacement door; and $349.99, the co st of replacing a refrigerator gasket and two broken screens found during a June 2011 maintenance inspection. The statement instructed the tenants to pay the $503.45 due on the account within thirty days. The door replacement charge and the subsequent la te fees
stemmed from a burglary that occurred at De Stefano’s residence in
October 2010. De Stefano and the other tenants filed a police report with the Iowa City Police Department. The report stated that the burg lary had left the exterior door frame dama ged and the door lock
broken. 2 Apartments Downtown was calle d to repair the door on
October 11. It arranged for Iowa City Maintenance, its in

- house maintenance group, to replace the kicked

- in door, and the charges were
billed to De Stefano and her roomma tes. The total cost of the repair and replacement was $598.46, which included $318.46 for the replacement door and $280 for four hours of labor. Upon receipt of this charge, one
of De Stefano’s co tenants sent a letter dated November 2 to Apartments
Downt own, contesting the charge and advising that the damage was not

2 The front door was split for a length of approximately twelve inches around the latch a nd deadbolt, and the frame was damaged as a result of being “kicked in” during a burglary. This damage rendered the front door of the house unlockable.7 caused by any of the tenants and the police investigation was ongoing.
The student tenant, in a letter apparently written with the advice of counsel, referenced paragraph 30 of the lease agreement which stated: “Tenants agree to pay all damages to the apartment windows, screen s , and doors, including exterior unit doors (including random acts of vandalism).” The tenant said she believed this lease provision to be
unconscionab le and thus unenforceable by a court. Apartments Downtown responded on November 17, By signing the lease agreement you agree to pay for all damages to the apartment windows, screens, and doors, including exterior unit doors, including r andom acts of vandal ism. If . . . the door was broken down during a burglary, the destruction of the door is considered vandalism . . . . Even though the door was damaged during the break in, and not by a guest of the tenants, it still falls under the basi s o[f] a visitor, whether they were a known guest or not

. . . . [I]f the police investigation results in the finding of the guilty party that was responsible for the damage, then at that time we would be more than happy to charge said person(s) for the damage. Until then however, the damage incurred to the property fall[s] under the responsibility of the leased tenants. At this time you currently still have an outstanding balance of 598.46 on your account, if this would happen to still be current when December[’ ] s rent co mes due, it will accumulate the standard $40.00 late charge. On December 2, De Stefano emailed Apartments Downtown and
indicated that on the advice of counsel the tenants w ould not be paying
for the door and that if Apartments Downtown held back their depo sit they would take legal action. Apartments Downtown, apparently believing the email to be a request that the $ 598.46 be taken from the
tenant s ’ damage deposit at the end of the rental term, res ponded by
email and referred De Stefano to a provision in th e lease agreement stating that charges needed to be paid immediately or else late fees would accumulate. The email stated,8 [I]f you do not pay this bill, a $40 late charge will be applied to your rental account balance, which from now until the end of yo u[r] lease term would amount to an additional $320.00 i n addition to the door balance. In May 2011, De Stefano and the other tenants sought to sublet their apartment for the summer months. They located individuals interested in subleasing their rental pro perty and contacted Apartments Downtown per the lease agreement, which stated , “[T] enants shall not sublet the dwelling unit . . . without the written consent of Landlord.” The lease also provided, however , “O nly apartments whose rental accounts are in go od standing may sublease. All rent/fees on the account must be paid before Landlord consents to a sublease.” Thus, Apartments Downtown refused to consent to any sublease because the tenants’ rental account carried an unpaid balance consisting of the
char ges for the replacement door and subsequen t late fees for nonpayment. De Stefano and the other tenants were not able to sublet their rental property. On June 22, Apartments Downtown entered the tenants’ rental property without proper notice to conduct an annual maintenance tour. Iowa City Maintenance employees repaired two bent window screens at a cost of $150 and replaced a torn refrigerator gasket at a cost of $129.99. Apartments Downtown added the total charge of $349.99 to the tenants’
rental accoun t, and it eventually became part of the “Past Due Rent and
Fees.” A month later, De Stefano and the other tenants received an email from Apartments Downtown containing move

- out and inspection information. The email also told the tenants, in bolded and cap ital letters, “Tenants Only Need to Vacuum Carpet!” Below, it stated, “As agreed to in the lease’s addendu m there will be a charge of $95

- $2259 deducted from the tenant’s deposit to pay for professional carpet cleaning at the expiration of the lease.” On July 26, Apartments Downtown performed a checkout inspection at the residence. After the inspection, the company arranged for carpet cleaning to be performed by a local company for a cost of $191. On August 25, Apartments Downtown sent out its statement
d isclosing the amounts withheld from the rental deposit and the balance
still owed. De Stefano responded with an email asking for the return of the deposit and characterizing the landlord’s charges against the account
as i llegal and u nreasonable. Apartments Downtown countered with a letter dated September 8, asserting that the deductions from the rental deposit complied with Iowa Code chapter 562A, which authorizes
deductions from a rental deposit either for a tenant’s default in payment
of rent or to restore a unit to the condition it had been in at the commencement of the tenancy. The letter provided a reason for each charge and declined to remove any of the charges. The landlord’s letter further requested that the tenants pay the balance on t he account by September 25 to avoid future collections action. On September 19, the Apartments Downtown Department of Col lections and Litigation sent
De Stefano and the other former tenants individual letters demanding payment of the claimed $503.45 balan ce due on the rental account. On October 4, De Stefano brought a small claims action against Apartments Downtown. 3 De Stefano ’s notice requested $ 5000 from Apartmen ts Downtown as well as attorney s ’ fees and court costs. On
October 28, De Stefano’s case w as stayed and consolidated with a

3 De Stefano’s standing to assert claims on behalf of herself and her three cotenants is not disputed.10 different case pending against Apartments Downtown in the district
court. The district court denied De Stefano’s motion for partial summary judgment in the consolidated case on May 17, 2012. De Stefano then
moved to tran sfer the case back to the small claims division, and the district court granted the motion on June 8. On July 18, the parties appeared for t rial in small claims court.
De Stefano presented a number of claims, includin g (1) that the automatic carpet

- cleani ng charges in the lease were illegal , (2) that the charges for replacement of a door that had been wrecked during the burg lary of the tenants’ residence were unlawful , (3) that the tenants lost two months’ rent because the landlord wrongfully refused to co nsent to their proposed sublease , (4) that punitive damages should be awarded under the IURLTA for the willful withholding of the rental deposit, and (5) that reasonable attorneys’ fees should be awarded under the IURLTA.
The small cla ims court found that the carpet

- cleaning provision in the lease was unenforceable, the lease provisions making tenants responsible for the damage to the door caused by a burglary were unconscionable and thus unenforceable, and punitive damages were
warranted. The court applie d various other deductions to the rental deposit not relevant to this appeal. The court awarded De Stefano $4 520 in damages and $200 in statutory pun itive damages for a total of $4 720. After the trial, De Stefano’s co counsels Warnock and Boyer filed
two s eparate affidavits requesting attorney fees in the amount s of $5466
and $1160 be added to the judgment nunc pro tunc. Apartments Downtown resisted on the ground that the attorney fee applications were untimely and would result in damages in excess of the jurisdictional
limits of the small claims court. The court declined to rule on the11 applications because by then Apartments Downtown had appealed to the Johnson County District Court. On appeal, the district court reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Th e district court entered a number of holdings relevant to this appeal. First, the district court held that Apartments Downtown and its tenants “were free to reach an agreement holding the tenants financially responsible for repair of a door damaged by an alleged criminal act” and reversed that aspect of the small claims court’s ruling. Second, “because the lease provision regarding the tenant’s financial responsibility for damage to exterior doors . . . was not prohibited,” the district court found
that A partments Downtown was free to refuse to consent to the proposed sublease due to tenants’ failure to pay the door charge, and the court accordingly reversed on that issue as well. Third, the district court held that the automatic carpet

- cleaning provision in its lease was “an illegal provision because it does not require the landlord to prove any specific damage to the carpet” and affirmed the small claims court on that ground. Fourth, the district court agreed with the small claims court
that late fees f or nonpayment of rent were not supported by actual evidence. Fifth, the district court concluded that “there was a bad faith retention of the security deposit based on, at a minimum, [Apartments Downtown]’s inclusion of the carpet

- cleaning fee in the leas e.” The court additionally found that Apartments Downtown retained the rental deposit in bad faith by assessing late fees for nonpayment of the cost of the replacement door, when “late fees were only permitted for non

payment of rent.” The court’s holding s reduced the award to De Stefano to $851.54. This figure was calculated by taking the $1635 deposit and reducing it by $385 (the deductions authorized by the small claims court and not12 challenged by De Stefano on appeal) and $598.46 (the charge for the
d oor replacement), then adding on $200 in punitive damages. Finally, the district court awarded De Stefano $1160 in attorney fees because Iowa Code section 562A.12(8) allows for the award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. We granted bot h parties’ requests for discretionary r eview and retained the appeal.
II. Standard of Review. “In a discretionary review of a small claims decision, the nature of
the case determines the standard of review.” GE Money Bank v. Morales , 773 N.W.2d 533, 536 (Iowa 2009). Our review of small claims actions
tried at law is for correction of errors at law. Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey , 728 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Iowa 2007). “A review of statutory
construction is at law.” GE Money Bank , 773 N.W.2d at 536. The district court’s factual findings, however, are binding upon this court if supported by substantial evidence. Id. ; Barnhill v. Iowa Dist. Ct. , 765 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Iowa 2009). We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discr etion. GreatAmerica Leasing Corp. v. Cool Comfort Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc. , 691 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 2005).
III. Preliminary Small Claims Court Jurisdictional Analysis.
A. Introduction. Apartments Downtown challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the small claims court. See Tigges v. City of Ames , 356 N.W.2d 503, 511 (Iowa 1984) (noting that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction should be considered before the court looks at other matters involved in the case”). “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power ‘ of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, not merely the particula r case then occupying the court’ s attention. ’ ” Klinge v. Bentien , 725 N.W.2d 13, 1513 (Iowa 2006) ( quoting Christie v. Rolscreen Co. , 448 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 1989) ) . Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim must be conferred by a constitutional or statutory grant. Id. “The parties themselves
cannot con fer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.” Schott v. Schott , 744 N.W.2d 85, 87 (Iowa 2008). At the outset, it is important to precisely define the legal issue behind the subject matter jurisdictional challenge. The question is not a broad, freewhee ling, hermeneutic issue of the meaning of “ a mount in controversy ” or “ cost

. ” Instead, the issue is narrow. The issue is
whether attor neys’ fees that may be awarded pursuant to the IU R LTA should be considered in determining whether the jurisdictional limitations of small claims proceedings are exceeded whe n the issue is not expressly addressed in the statutes.
B. Relevant S tatutory P rovisions
. We begin our jurisdictional analysis with an overview of relevant statutory provisions. The small claims court has jurisdiction over those “civil action[s] for a money judgment where the amount in controversy is

. . . five thousand dollars
or less . . . exclusive of interest and costs.” Iowa Co de §§ 631. 1 (1),

. 2 (1) (2011). 4 The legislature created this scheme for small claims because it “thought it was in the public interest to provide a simpler, easier, and less expensive procedure than was afforded in district court under the
Rules of Civil P rocedure.” Barnes Beauty Coll. v. McCoy , 279 N.W.2d 258, 259 (Iowa 1979); see Iowa Legis. C t

. Study Comm’n, Report to 62d Iowa General Assembly pt. I, at 4 (1967) (proposing to the legislature a new court division that would hear claims using a “simple, e xpeditious, and inexpensive” procedure).

4 All Code references are to 2011 unless otherwise indicated.14 In small claims court, no pleadings are required

— a claimant can begin an action by filling out a si mple form. Iowa Code §§ 631.3, .7(1);
Barnes , 279 N.W.2d at 259. Jurisdiction over the case is determined at the time set for the hearing of the small claim. Iowa Code § 631.9. If at any time a claim is joined that is not a small claim, the small claims court may order the entire action tried by regular procedure. Id

. § 631.8 (4) . In the alternative, the court may separate the claims and try the small claims itself while transferring the others to the district court.
Id. ; see also Wilson v. Iowa Dist. C t

. , 297 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1980) (noting that the small claims court properly ordered a case transferred when “the amount in controversy on one side of the case exceeded [the jurisdictional limit]” and the claims arose out of the same transaction).
Iowa Code c hapter 631 does not provide a statutory definition of

“ a mo unt in controversy ” or “ c osts. ” There is a section in the chapter stating that certain “fees and costs” shall be collected in advance by the
clerk of the district court. See Iowa Code § 631.6. The statute also provides that these items “shall be assesse d as costs.” Id. The items are fees for filings, fees for service of notice, postage, and fees for personal
service. Id. The Code section simply lists items collected in advance by
the clerk which are later assessed as costs under the statute. Attorne ys’
fees are not costs incurred in advance and la ter assessed in litigation,
and as a result, it is not surprising that attorneys’ fees are not mentioned in this Code provision. The IURLTA has a number of provisions related to attorneys’ fees.
Iowa Code s ection 562A.12(8) provides that “[ t ] he court may, in any action on a rental agreement, award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Iowa Code section 562A.11 also has an attorneys’ fee provision. “ If a landlord willfully uses a rental agreement containing15 provisions known by the landlord to be prohibited, a tenant may recover actual d amages sustained by the tenant and not more than three
month s ’ periodic rent and reasonable attorney fees .” Id. § 56 2A.11(2) (emphasis added). This section distinguishes between a ctual damages
and a ttorneys’ fees that may be awarded by the district court.
C
. Positions of the P arties. Apartments Downtown did not challenge subject matter jurisdiction in either the smal l claims court or on appeal in the district court. 5 It now maintains, however, that the judgment below must be vacated because the amount in controversy
exceeded small cl aims jurisdiction as soon as De Stefano filed attorney fee applications specifically requesting more than $280 on top of her $4720 damage award.
De Stefano sees things differently. She contends that attorneys’ fees do not count against the $5000 jurisdictional l imit in small claims
court. De Stefano has two theories for why attorneys’ fe es do not count against the jurisdictional limit. First, she urges the IURLTA specifically authorizes attorneys’ fees. The IURLTA provides, “The court may, in any action on a rental agreement, award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” Id. § 562A.12(8). She looks to the IURLTA for support for her attorney s’ fee argument. Alternatively, however, De Stefano argues that the small claims statute should be interpreted as excluding atto rneys’ fees in determining
the a mount in controversy. Accor ding to Iowa Code section 631.1 (1) , a small claims action is a “civil action for money judgment where the

5 Apartments Downtown did oppose De Stefano’s attorney fee applications on the ground that they would result in an award in excess of small claims jurisdiction, but prior to this appeal never asserted that the small claims court (or the district court on appeal) had actually lost jurisdiction.16 amount in controversy is

. . . five t housand dollars or less . . . exclus ive
of interest and costs.” De Stefa no maintains the exclusion for “ c osts ”

a pplies here because attorneys’ fees should be considered costs under
the statute. De Stefano further argues that, as a practical matter, judges
are reluctant to aw ard attorneys’ fees in landlord

– tenant actions, and in
any case such fees would rarely be aw arded in amounts which would cause the total to exceed $5000 except in cases of an egregious violation
of the IURLTA.
D
. Caselaw from O ther J urisdictions. As indicated above, the precise issue in this case is whether attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to
t he IURLTA should be considered for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of small claim s courts when the underlying statutes do not expressly address the issue. There are a number of cases from other
states which address the question. A leading case supporting the view that attorneys’ fees should not be considered in determining the jurisdiction of New Jersey’s version of
small claims court is Lettenmaier v

. Lube Connection, Inc

. , 741 A.2d 591 ( N.J. 1999). In th at case, the question wa s whether an award of attorneys’ fees under a New Jersey consumer fraud statute should be considered as part of the a mount in controversy in New Jersey ’s version
of small claims court. Id. at 591. The New Jersey Supreme Court, among other things, pointed to the underlying provision of the consumer
fraud statute , which grouped attorneys’ fees with “filing fee s and costs.”
Id. at 594

. In addition, the Lettenmaier court noted that “a majority of
the out

- of

- state cases which have addressed the issue have he ld that counsel fees, not otherwise characteriz ed, are to be considered as costs.”
Id. at 595

.17 Interestingly, the Lettenmaier court cited two Iowa cases as standing for the proposition that attorneys’ fees cannot be considered in determining whether juris dictional limits have been exceeded because attorneys’ fees are “separate and distinct ” events that cannot be assessed before liability is established. Id. ( citing Ayala v. Ctr. Line, Inc ., 415 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 1987) ; Maday v . Elview

- Stewart Sys. , Co. , 324 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 1982) ) . The Lettenmaier court distinguished federal diversity cases where the question is whether attorneys’ fees should be considered
in order to reach the jurisdictional minimum. Id. The court noted that the analogy to federal div ersity cases “loses its persuasive power entirely when it is applied to circumscribe a litigant’s access to a court that is especially suited to his or her claims.” Id. at 596

. The Lettenmaier court also considered practical implications of a contrary rul e. The court noted that plaintiffs seeking a quick and relatively inexpensive resolution in small claims courts could face defense tactics of piling on attorneys’ fees to excee d the jurisdictional
maximum

. Id. More importantly, the court feared that inc luding attorneys’ fees as part of the amount in controvers y would put plaintiffs in the position of foregoing counsel fees in order to maintain the expedited process. Id

. A case from t he Ohio Court of Appeals also supports leaving attorneys’ fees out of the “ amount in controversy ” for jurisdiction

— Drake

v

. Menczer , 425 N.E.2d 961 (Ohio Ct. App. 1980). This case involved a small claim brought under the Ohio Landlords and Tenants Act (OLTA),
Ohio Revised Code c h apter 5321. Id. at 962. Like Lettenmaier , the
Drake court noted that “ [ t ] raditionally, when a statute authorize s the award of attorneys’ fees, it does so by allowing the fees to be taxed as
costs.” Drake , 425 N.E.2d at 963

. The Drake court also focused on the18 language of the O LTA, noting that its fee

- shifting provisions provided for “actual damages together with reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Id

. (quoting Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5321.02). The Ohio court concluded that the legislature intended damages and attorneys’ fees to be separate items ,

a nd attorneys’ fees should be taxed as costs. Id. at 964; s ee als o Bittner

v

. Tri

- Cty. Toyo ta, Inc ., 598 N.E.2d 925, 928 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1992) (attorn eys’ fees arising from consumer protection statute are considered
costs and not damages for purposes of jurisdictional li mitation in municipal courts).
In Arabian v. Kearns , the Oregon appellate court considered whether attorneys’ fees should be considered in determining the amount in controversy under an Oregon small claims statute. 667 P.2d 1038, 1039 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) (en banc)

. The Oregon court concluded that attorneys’ fees should not be included in determin ing the jurisdictional
limit. Id. at 1040

. Among other reasons, the Oregon court stressed that attorneys’ fees are not a matter of proof during trial, but are instead determined after trial and are procedurally treated like costs and
disbursements. Id. This reasoning is close to that in Le ttenmaier , where the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on Iowa cases making that point. A Wisconsin appellate court considered the issue in Reusch v

. Roob , 610 N.W.2d 1 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). In th at case, the Wisconsin appellate court considered whether s tatutory attorneys’ fees awarded
under a Wisconsin consumer protection statute should be included for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of a small claims court. Id. at 178. The Reusch court concluded that statutory attorneys’ fees should
not be in cluded. Id. at 179. The court reasoned that the attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to consumer protection statutes were not designed to19 compensate victims for damages but instead to compensate attorneys for
their services. Id.
The Reusch case was cited wi th approval by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co ., 784 N.W.2d 542 (Wis. 2010). In a footnote, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, citing prior precedent, noted the “subtle but significant difference
b etween attorney[s’] fees attributable to bringing a lawsuit and those recoverable as damages resulting from a tort.” Id. at 572 n. 65. The

c ourt emphasized that attorney s’ fees attributable to bringing a lawsuit

are “ intended to compensate the attorneys, whereas [damages are] intended to compensate the victims.” Id

. There are cases that seem to stand for the contrary. For example, Texas courts have generally held that in determining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes, actual damages, exemplar y damages, and attorneys’ fees are included. See Villa r real v

. Elizondo , 831 S.W.2d 474 , 476 (Tex

. App. 1992). This rule is qualified, however, by the notion that a plaintiff may seek additional damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits if they have occurred as a result of the passage of
time. Id . Similarly, in Pinnacle Properties v. Saulka , an Indiana appellat e court held that attorneys’ fees should be included in determining the amount sought for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of a small
claims court. 693 N.E.2d 101, 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). The Indiana
court noted that the small claims statute di d not explicitly distinguish
between attorneys’ fees and damages. Id

. E. Iowa C asel aw. There is no Iowa case law directly on point on the narrow jurisdictional question presented here. There are two cases, however, that were cited by Lettenmaier that ma y have bearing on the20 question of whether attorneys’ fees should be considered in determining the amount in controversy for purposes of jurisdictional limitations.
In Ma day , we consider ed a question of attorney s ’ fe es in the
context of Iowa Code c hapter 91A, the Wage Payment Act. 324 N.W.2d at
468

. The precise question posed was whether attorneys’ fees should be determined by a judge or jury in proceedings brought under the statute.
Id. at 469. In Ma day , we sided with authorities treating statu tory allowance of attorney s’ fees as costs logically assessable by the court. Id

. at 469

– 70.
We reached a similar result in Ayala . There, the question was whether a judge or jury should determine an award of attorneys’ fees
under the Iowa C ivil R ights A c t. Ayala , 415 N.W.2d at 604. We observed that “an award of attorney fees is more in the nature of an equitable remedy than an award o f actual damages.” Id. at 605. We further noted the assessment of attorneys’ fees, like the assessment of court costs, cannot be done until liability is established. Id. at 606. We therefore, as
in Ma day , determined the question of attorneys’ fees should be handled
in the same manne r as costs, namely, decided by the court after trial of the underlying matter. Id.
We have also considered wh ether c osts includes attorney s ’ fees in significantly different contexts than what we fac e in this case. For instance, in Weaver Construction Co. v. Heitland , we held that the term

“ c osts ” in Iowa Code c hapter 677 could not be interpreted as including attorneys ’ fees. 348 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984). Similarly, in Turner v. Zip Motors , we held that the use of the term “ c osts ” in Iowa Code section 625.1 should not be interpreted to include attorneys’ fees. 245 Iowa 1091, 1100, 65 N.W.2d 427, 432 (1954). These cases, however, deal with
th e question of whether the term “ c ost ” or “ costs ” is suffici ent to create a21

substantive fee

- shifting provision contrary to the ordinary American ru le that each party bears the expense of fees charged by their attorneys. These cases simply do not address the ques tion of whether a reference to

c osts in a jurisdictional statute includes attorneys’ fees when there is a separate statutory authority to shift the costs of attorneys’ fees to the other party.
F . Analysis. In interpreting section 631.1, we begin with the statutory language. See In re Marriage of Thatcher , 864 N.W.2d 533, 538 (Iowa 2015). “Words or phrase s that are undefined in the statute or for which there is no established legal meaning are given their common, ordinary meaning in the context within which they are used.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte , 843 N.W.2d 876, 880 (Iowa 2014). If the statute is

u nambiguous, we will look no further than the language chosen by the legislature. In re J.C. , 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). “Under the pretext of construction, we may not extend a statute, expand a statute, or change its meaning.” Bank of Am. , 843 N.W .2d at 880. Yet, we have cautioned that courts “should be circumspect regarding narrow claims of plain meaning and must striv e to make sense of [a statute] as a whole.” Rolfe State Bank v

. Gunderson , 794 N.W.2d
561 , 564 (Iowa 2011)

. The meaning of langu age is often not self

- evident.
“Whether or not the words of a statute are clear is itself not always
clear.” Barbee v

. United States , 392 F.2d 532, 535 n.4 (5t h Cir. 1968).
When a statute is ambiguous, we may look to a wide variety of intrinsic
and extrinsic aids to discover the meaning of the legislative language.
State v. McIver , 858 N.W.2d 699, 704 (Iowa 201 5). We recognize, however, that use of various resources and interpretive aids do not mechanically and automatically produce inescapabl e answers. See 2A22 Norman J. Singer & Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction , § 45.13 , 137

– 38 (7th ed. rev. 2014 ).
We have little trouble noting that the meaning of the terms “amount in controversy” and “costs” for purposes of determining the limits of small claims jurisdi ction under Iowa Code section 6 3 1 .1 cannot be resolved by simply declaring a p lain meaning. Both terms are open

textured and can include and exclude a wide variety of items, depending on context. The ambiguity of the statut ory terms is demonstrated by legislative usage. In some contexts, the legis lature has expressly said
that c osts includes attorneys’ fees. For example, Iowa Code s ection
6 B.33 authorizes payment of all c osts in appeals of condemnation proceedings “including reasonable attorney fees.” 6 In other contexts, the

6 See, e.g ., Iowa Code § 207.14(5) (2015) (allowing court to as sess “all reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees” in administrative proceeding regarding coal mining inspection); id . § 421B.10 (awarding “costs of suit, including reasonable attorney fees” to plaintiffs for established violation s of cigarette sales statutes); id . § 455B.111(4) (authorizing award of costs including attorney fees to any party in action for natural resources statute violations); id . § 501A.801(4)( h ) (allowing court to order payment of “party’s reasonable costs, incl uding reasonable attorney fees” in suits over the inspection of business records); id . § 504.1604(3) (requiring any court ordering nonprofit corporation to allow the inspection of its records by a member to also “pay the member’s costs, including reasonabl e attorney fees”); id. § 507C.46(2) (stating that any applicant for assets in insurer liquidation “shall pay the costs and expenses of the liquidator in resisting the application including a reasonable attorney fee”); id

. § 533C.705 (assessing costs includ ing reasonable attorney fees against persons who violate the Uniform Money Services Act); id . § 535B.13(3) (allowing court to order that unlicensed banker “pay the costs for the investigation and prosecution of the enforcement action including attorney fee s”); id . § 552A.5(3) (stating that persons injured by violations of statutory prescriptions for sale of club memberships may recover “costs, including reasonable attorney fees”); id . § 553.12(4) (allowing injured person or state to “[r]ecover the necessary costs of bringing suit, including a reasonable attorney fee” under Iowa competition law); id . § 598.24 (levying costs, including attorney fees against a party in contempt in a divorce proceeding); id . § 600B.25 (allowing court to award prevailing party in a paternity suit “the reasonable costs of suit, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees”); id . §§ 633.551(5), .673 (assessing the costs, including attorney fees, of a guardianship against ward or ward’s estate); id

. § 633A.4507 (permitting c ourt to award costs including reasonable attorney fees to any party in a proceeding on the administration of a trust); id . § 654.17(2) (allowing mortgagee to charge mortgagor “the costs, including reasonable attorney fees, of23 legislature had declared that the court may tax “as costs” a reasonable attorney fee. For instance, in Iowa Code section 625.22 the general assembly pro vided that “[w]hen judgment is recovered upon a written contract containing an agreement to pay an attorney fee, the court shall allow and tax as part of the costs a reasonable attorney fee to be determined by the court.” 7 This legislative language plainl y suggests that, at least in some contexts, the simple term “ costs ” is broad enough to include attorney fees. Yet, in other statutes, the legislature has referred to attorneys’ fees and costs as separate and distinct items. 8 In addition , although the

foreclosure and rescission”); id . § 714.16(11) (entitling attorney general to recover costs of court action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in consumer fraud action); id

. § 714.16B(1)( b )(3) (providing for recovery of attorney fees as part of reasonable costs of bringing a civil action for identity theft); id . § 715A.2A(3)( b ) (assessing against any employer that accommodates fraud the costs of an enforcement action including attorney fees).

7 See, e.g ., Iowa Code § 202B.401(2)( b ) (2015) (awarding attorney fees that are “taxed as pa rt of the costs of the action” to parties prevailing in actions for agricultural processing violations); id . § 202C.3(1) (taxing attorney fees as part of the costs of a legal action for breaching a sales agreement); id . § 257B.33 (awarding compensation for attorney fees to be taxed as costs in actions by school boards to recover debts); id

. § 327D.16 (allowing court to tax as “costs in the case,” the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney fee); id . § 479.46(6) (prescribing that pipeline company pay all cos ts of appealing an assessment of installation damages “including reasonable attorney fees to be taxed by the court”); id . § 479B.30(6) (same for construction damages); id

. § 502.509(5) (awarding attorney fees taxed as court costs to clients maintaining act ions against unregistered investment advisers); id . § 573.21 (allowing court to tax, as costs, attorney fees for parties establishing a claim for labor or materials on public improvements); id . § 717A.3(2)( b ) (awarding “reasonable attorney fees, which shall be taxed as part of the costs of the action,” to prevailing plaintiffs in actions for damage to crops); Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1225 (“On partition of real estate, but not of personal property, the court shall fix, and tax as costs, a fee in favor of plain tiff’s attorney . . . .”).

8 See, e.g. , Iowa Code § 21.6(3)( b ) (2015) (requiring a court to “order the payment of all costs and reasonable attorney fees” to a person prevailing on an open meetings claim); id . § 22.10(3)( c ) (providing that a court shall “ord er the payment of all costs and reasonable attorney fees” to a person prevailing on an open records claim); id

. § 80A.16A(2) (authorizing costs and reasonable attorney fees as part of recovery for persons injured by actions of bail enforcement agents); id

. § 91A.8 (making an employer that intentionally fails to pay wages liable for “court costs and any attorney’s fees incurred in recovering the unpaid wages”); id . §§ 216.15(9)( a )(8), .17A(6)(11) (allowing _________________________24

con text is different, we have not interpreted the word “costs” when used alone in a statute to be inclusive of attorney fees. See Weaver , 348

plaintiff in discriminatory housing or wage action t o recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs); id . § 217.31 (providing that any entity that disseminates confidential records is liable for “court costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees”); id

. § 252B.13A(1) (stating that child “support payme nts do not include attorney fees [or] court costs”); id . § 252K.313(3) (“The tribunal shall order the payment of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees if it determines that a hearing was requested primarily for delay.”); id . § 322G.8(3) (allowing consumer t o recover pecuniary loss, “reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs” in action over defective motor vehicle); id . § 327C.21 (permitting court to “render judgment for costs, and attorney’s fees for counsel representing the state” in actions against railroads f or violations of duties owed to the public); id . § 502.509(2)( c ), (3)( c ) (permitting award of costs and reasonable attorney fees in securities actions); id . § 523D.7(1) (permitting recovery of “court costs and reasonable attorney fees ” from provider of con tinuing car e for violations of chapter 523D); id

. § 523H.13 (creating liability for both costs and reasonable attorney fees for violators of chapter regarding franchises); id . §§ 535.8(4)( d ), .11(8) (allowing for recovery of both costs and attorney fees fr om lender or creditor who collects an unlawful charge); id

. § 535A.6(2) (permitting court to award actual damages, court costs, and attorney fees if financial institution committed a “red

- lining” violation); id . § 537.3621 (authorizing a consumer’s recover y of attorney fees and court costs); id . § 551A.8 (authorizing awards of reasonable attorney fees and court costs for violations of disclosure in business opportunity promotions); id . § 572.32(1) (permitting prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attor ney fees in action to enforce mechanic’s lien); id . § 598B.312(1) (awarding to prevailing parties seeking child support costs and attorney fees along with other expenses of proceedings); id . § 633.713(4) (stating that court may assess expenses including at torney fees and court costs against party engaging in unjustifiable conduct regarding guardianship proceeding); id . § 649.5 (permitting court to “assess, in addition to the ordinary costs of court, an attorney fee” to a successful plaintiff in an action to quiet a title); id . § 663A.1(6)( a ) (listing as part of the damages recoverable by a wrongfully imprisoned person “court costs imposed and paid and any reasonable attorney’s fees”); id . § 685.3(6)( b ) (enabling recovery of “litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees” by certain whistleblowers); id . § 692.6 (making entities disseminating criminal history information in violation of chapter liable for “court costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees”); id . § 714B.8(2) (providing for recovery of “[c]osts and reasonable attorney fees” when a person suffers pecuniary loss because of a violation of the prize promotion law); id. § 714D.6(1)( c ) (allowing for recovery of “[c]osts and reasonable attorney fees” in an action by a consumer against a telecommunications provider for fraud); id. § 714G.11 (permitting attorney general to seek “a monetary award for civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs” for consumer credit violations); id

. § 729.6(8) (awarding as part of relief to an aggrieved party under genetic testing laws attorney fees and court costs); id . § 729A.5 (providing that hate crime victims may bring an action for “reasonable attorney fees[] and costs”); id . § 809A.12(7) (requiring agency bringing forfeiture action to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs); id . § 910.2(1) (listing “court costs” and the “court

- appointed attorney fees” as separate charges to be payab le by any convicted offender). _________________________25

N.W.2d at 233 (“We do not agree, however, that the word ‘costs’ [in chapter 677] should be so liberally stretched as to include attorney fees.”); Turner , 245 Iowa at 1100, 65 N.W.2d at 432 (“[Section 625.1] has always been held to mean the ordinary costs, n ot including attorney fees.”). We should be careful not to extrapolate too much from the foregoing statutes and aut horities. They do suggest, however, that the threshold test of ambiguity has been crossed and that we may resort to interpretive tools to guide us in determining the narrow issue presented
here. 9
In order to aid us in determine the meaning of c osts in the small claims statute where a substantive statute authorizes the payment of attorneys ’ fees, we turn to historical precursors of our current small claims statute. Before the passage of the U nified Trial Court Act in
1972

— 1972 Iowa Acts chapter 1124

— Iowa had justice

- of

- the

- peace courts with limited amount

- in

- controversy jurisdiction. See Iowa Code §§ 602.1

– .56 (1971). The legislature created the small claims division of the Iowa district courts to replace the justice

- of

- the

- peace courts and the
othe r inferior courts that had previously resolved small civil disputes.
Suzanne E. Elwell & Christopher D. Carlson , The Iowa Small Claims Court: An Empirical Analysis , 75 Iowa L. Rev. 433, 453

– 60 (1990) [hereinafter Elwell] . Under the former system, we view ed contractual

9 Prior to 1980, contractual attorneys’ fees were a percentage of the recovery. See Iowa Code § 625.22 (1979) (authorizing court to tax as costs an attorney fee set as a percentage of the amount recovered). Thereafter, court s were authorized to award reasonable attorneys’ fees. See Iowa Code § 625.22 (1981) (authorizing court to award a reasonable attorney fee). One could argue that once courts were given authority to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, it no longer becam e possible to tax them in the same mechanical manner that costs were taxed. Yet the “tax” terminology remained in the statute.26 attorneys’ fees as equivalent to costs for amount

- in

- controversy purposes and thus excluded them in computing the jurisdictional limit: One question certified and argued seems properly to arise from the record, and is of a determinative char acter ; and that is , as to whether, in determining the jurisdiction of the justice, where a question is made as to the amount in controversy, an attorney’s fee provided for in the note is to be considered a part of the amount in controversy , or treated as c osts. The statute expressly declares that it shall be treated as a part of the costs. Section 2 of act above cited. The amount in controversy, then, was not more than $100, and the justice had jurisdiction. Spiesberger Bros. v. Thomas , 59 Iowa 606, 609 , 13 N.W. 745, 746 (1882). Fifty years later, we reiterated this point: [W]e know of no case holding that in determining the question of jurisdiction, the prayer for costs is taken into consideration in determining the amount in controversy. The right to recover costs is a statutory one, and an incident of the litigation. It is equally true that contracts may provide for attorney’s fees, and courts have recognized the right to so provide; but the statute provides they should be taxed as a part of the cost s. The amount t hereof is fixed by statute, and therefore is not a matter of controversy between the parties. They are in the same category as any other statutory costs incident to litigation, and cannot be taken into consideration in determining the amou nt in controversy between the parties. In other words, the claim of $50 for attorney’s fees made by the plaintiff is simply a claim for costs, the same as for any other costs incident to the litigation.
Johnson v. Boren , 215 Iowa 453 , 455

– 56 , 245 N.W. 711, 712

– 13 (1932)

. Given that the 1972 legislation did not explicitly address how attorneys’ fees were to be handled for jurisdictional amount pur poses, apart from stating that c osts should be excluded, we think it is fair to infer the general assembly in tended a continuation of prior law . See Iowa Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Envtl. Prot. Comm’n, 850 N.W.2d 403, 434 (Iowa 2014) (“The legislature is presumed to know the state of the law,27 including case law, at the time it enacts a statute. ” (quoting Welch v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp. , 801 N.W.2d 590, 600 (Iowa 2011) ) )

. The cost exclusion for jurisdictional amount purposes therefore would extend to contractual attorneys’ fees. Of course, this does not directly answer the question of how

non contractual attorneys’ fees should be treated. The existence of “a written contract containing an agreement to pay an attorney ’s fee” upon which a judgment has been recovered is a clear condition precedent to the application of section 625.22. See, e.g. , Bankers Tru st Co. v. Woltz , 326 N.W.2d 274, 277

– 78 & n.4 (Iowa 1982) (applying section 625.22 to a surety contract). So, section 625.22 does not apply here. We have previously stated, however, that statutory, noncontractual attorneys’ fees are likewise taxed and tre ated as costs: When a statute provides for attorney fees but is silent as to their ascertainment, we find the better rule to be that

“ [w]here attorneys’ fees are allowed to the successful party, they are in the nature of costs and are taxable and treated a s such. ” Maday , 324 N.W.2d at 469 (quoting 20 Am. Jur. 2d Cost § 72 (1965)) ; see also Ayala , 415 N.W.2d at 605

. As indicated above, Ma day and Ayala were cited in Lettenmaier in support of its holding that attorneys’
fe es are not included within the a mount in controversy for purposes of determining the jurisdictional limits of small claims courts.
As noted above, p rior to the 1972 Unified Court Act, we had made clear that because contractual fees were taxed as costs, they were
therefore excluded from the a mount

- in

- controversy calculation. Since other attorneys’ fees authorized by statute are likewise taxed as costs, it seems incongruous they would be treated differently

— i.e., deemed part of the amount in controversy. This would go against the holdings of28 Spiesberger and Johnson that amounts taxed as costs do not count against the jurisdictional limit. Johnson , 215 Iowa at 455

– 56, 245 N.W.
at 712

– 13; Spiesberger , 59 Iowa at 608, 13 N.W. at 746

. T reating such fees as costs for section 631.1 purposes avoids a seemingly odd situation where attorneys’ fees somet imes would and sometimes would no t count toward the amount in controversy, depending on the basis for those fees. Further, we think the reasoning contained in the out

- of

- state caselaw declining to incl ude attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to statute in determining the limits of small claims jurisdiction is persuasive. As pointed out in Reusch , the purpose of statutory fees is not to compensate plaintiffs for their damages, but to compensate attorneys. 610 N.W.2d at
179. This reasoning suggests that an award of statutory attorneys’ fees
should not be included for small cl aims jurisdictional purposes. See i d.
A s suggested in Lettenmaier and Arabian , the fact that statutory attorneys’ fees are ordinarily not determined by the fact finder, but are
trea ted like other costs, indicates that when there is a statutory basis for awarding attorneys’ f ees they should be treated as c osts and not as an

a mount in controversy under a small claims statute. S ee Lettenmaier,
741 A.2d at 596 ; Arabian , 667 P.2d at 1040

. Further, the Lettenmaier
court looked to the underlying fee

- shifting statute, noting that attorneys’ fees were grou ped with filing fees and costs. Lettenmaier , 741 A.2d at
594 ; see also Drake , 425 N.E. 2d at 96 3

– 6 4 (looking to language of underlying fee

- shifting statute to determine if attorneys’ fees are to be included in determining small claims jurisdiction). Here, the underlying statute clearly distinguishes between d amages and attorney fees

. Iowa
Code § 562A.12(3), (7), (8)

. We acknowledge that the treatment of costs under the federal diversity statute seems inconsistent with our view at first blush. Under29 the federal diversity statute, federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes betwee n citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, “exclusive of in terest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012 ) . Contractual and statutory attorneys’ fees generally count against the jurisdictional limit, see 14AA Charles A. Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 3712, at 806

– 12 (2011), and our legislature employed the same phrase

— “exclusive of interest and costs”

— in the
Unified Court Act in 1972. 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1124 , § 60 (codified at Iowa Code § 631.1 (1973))

. Yet, as noted in Lettenmaier , including attorneys’ fees against the jurisdictional limit in the context of the federal diversity statute is designed to expand access to the federal court for substantial cases, not contract access to small claims court whe re matters are efficiently and expeditiously resolved. 741 A.2d at 596. We recognize that small claims court is meant to provide a simple and streamlined judicial process with limited dollar amounts at stake.
See Barnes , 279 N.W.2d at 259. Attorneys’ f ees, unlike traditional court costs and interest, can have a substantial impact on financial risks posed by the litigation. If attorneys’ fees are not included in calculating the small claims jurisdictional limits, fee shifting can have the effect of sign ificantly raising defendants’ exposure.
There c an be little question, however, that landlord

– tenant disputes are ordinarily the kind of dispute that should be resolved in
small claims court

. Tenants are ge nerally quite mobile, and drawn

- out
procee dings c ould impair the ability of tenants to vindicate their statutory rights. Small claims court will often be the most preferable
forum.30 Yet, without a lawyer, it will often be very difficult for tenants to litigate these small claims. 10 This case is a good ex ample of the kind of case that simply could not realistically have been prosecuted by student tenants on a pro se basis. We want to encourage the use of smal l claims procedure for landlord

– tenant dispute s , not put the preferred forum at risk simply because tenants are represented by competent and zealous
counsel. For all the reasons stated above, we are p ersuaded that the
exclusion of c osts in Iowa Code section 631.1 applies to amounts “taxed as costs,” i.e., attorneys’ fees when separately authoriz ed. Accordingly, the small claims court had jurisdiction to hear this case. Our opinion is limited to section 631.1 and should not be taken as expres sing a view
that when the term “ costs ” is used in other contexts, it encompasses attorneys’ fees.

IV
. Duties of Landlord and Tenant Regarding Damaged Exterior Door.

A. Development of the Implied Warranty of Fitness and Habitability.
1. Historical o verview. The law related to landlord

– tenant relationships has evolved over time. For centuries, landl ord

– tenant law was governed by property law. See Russell E. Lovell, The Iowa Uniform
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and the Iowa Mobile Home Parks
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act , 31 Drake L. Rev. 253, 256

– 57 (1981) [hereinafter Lovell]; see also Mease v. Fox , 200 N.W.2d 791, 793

10 According to one source, landlords are represented by counsel in twenty

- five percent of the small claims cases. See Elwell, 75 Iowa L. Rev. at 471. Consultation with attorneys appears to occur between thirty

- four percent for plaintiffs and thirty

- one percent for defendants in tenant claims. Id . at 490, Table J.31 (Iowa 1972). The right to possess land for agricultural purposes was thought to be at the heart of the transaction , and as a result, the landlord had no obligation to repair structures located on the property.
See Mease , 200 N.W.2d at 793. Further, the common law recognized an independent doctrine under which the tenant’s obligation to pay rent was independent of the landlord’s obligation to the tenant

. Donald E. Campbell, Forty (Plus) Years After the Revolution: Observations on the Implied Warranty of Habitability , 3 5 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 79 3, 796

– 97 (2013) [hereinafter Campbell]. With industrialization and urbanization, however, common law courts began to take a se cond look at the traditi onal no

- repair doctrine.
See id. at 797. In the modern age, many landlord

– tenant relationships
involved residences in which the core interest of the tenant was appropriate living space, not sprawling land for crop production. See id.
at 799. W hile the yeoman farmer could generally maintain land for agricultural purposes as well as the landlord, modern city dwellers lacked the ability to make necessary repairs of residential property. See Lovell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 259. Further, many courts noted the disparity of bargaining power between landlords and tenants. See, e.g ., Knight v. Hallsthammar , 623 P.2d 268, 271 (Cal. 1981) (en banc); Park
W. M gm t

. Corp. v. Mitchell , 391 N.E.2d 1288, 1292 (N.Y. 1979).

As a result of these changed social and economic circumstances, courts began to change the prevailing legal regime surrounding the
landlord

– tenant relationship. Many courts d eparted from the traditional

no

- repair rule through implying what was labeled a warranty of fitness and habitability in a resident ial lease. By the early 1970s, a majority of state courts, including Iowa, provided common law protection for residential tenants to ensure habitability of the premises. See, e.g .,32

Mease , 200 N.W.2d at 796 (citing cases). These cases abandoned the
doctr ine of independency and imposed mutual obligations whereby the landlord’s right to receive rent was inseparable from the landlord’s obligation to provide a fit and habitable premises.
2. Eclectic analytic underpinnings of doctrine

. The analytic bas e s for the implied warranty of habitability were eclectic. Some courts drew an analogy to contract law in general and the implied warranties under
the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in particular

. S ee , e.g. , Javins v. First Nat’l Realty Corp. , 428 F.2d 107 1, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Park W. , 391 N.E.2d at 1292 ; Mary Ann Glendon, The Tran sformation of American
Landlord

– Tenant Law , 23 B.C. L. Rev. 503, 547 (1982) [hereinafter Glendon]. This conceptualization had the merit of freeing landlord

– tenant la w from th e law of property, but as some have observed, it is a “strained one” and has a “small resemblance” to implied warrantie s in the sale of goods. Campbell, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. at 8 29

– 30,
830 n.208 ; Glendon, 23 B.C. L. Rev. at 546

– 47. Indeed, the common law implied warranty of habitability has a number of features materially different from contractual theory and the UCC. Unlike under the UCC, the common law warranty of implied habitability ordinarily applies even when the defects are obvious to th e
tenant at the time of “ sale ” and even though the tenant reasonably could have discovered the defect by inspection. See Gl endon, 23 B.C. L. Rev.
at 547 & n.285 . The UCC allows “as is” transactions, while the majority
of courts refuse to allow “as is” tr ansactions in a residential lease as contrary to the implied warranty of habitability. See id. at 547
& n n.286

– 88 . The buyer under the UCC has the choice of rejecting the goods or keeping them and suing for damages , while under the i mplied warranty of ha bitability the tenant may stay in possession and still not33
pay rent. See id. at 547 & n n .2 89

– 90. In addition, t he landlord

– tenant

r elationship is an ongoing relationship. Thus, the analogy comparing the implied warranty of habitability with contract law or the UCC has limited utility and may well be “misnamed.” See Edward H. Rabin, The
Rev olution in Residential Landlord

– Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences , 69 Cornell L. Rev. 517, 521 (1984) [hereinafter Rabin]. See generally Campbell, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. at 829

– 31; Glendon, 23 B.C. L. Rev. at 547

– 48. Further, the common law warranty of habitability is implied in law,
not in fact. Kline v. Burns , 276 A.2d 248, 2 52 (N.H. 1971). The d octrine just does not rest on t he unstated expectations of the parties, or even one of them, but rather on public interests in health and safety. See Campbell, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. at 829

– 31; Glendon, 23 B.C. L.
Rev. at 547

– 48 . As a doctrine , implied in law is more in the do main of public law than private ordering. See Berman & Sons, Inc. v. Jefferson , 396 N.E.2d 981, 986 n.11 (Mass. 1979) (noting implied warranty caselaw removing the landlord’s duty from the “realm of private ordering”); see also Glendon, 23 B.C. L. Rev. at 505. Aside from theory, a review of the cases demonstrates the public law aspects of the common law implied warranty of habitability. One of the important underlying impetuses of the development in the common law of the implied warranty was the public p olicy embraced in the enactment of housing codes by state and local authorities to protect tenants and ensure a safe and sanitary housing stock. 11 See Javins , 428

11 Although the legislative policy behind housing codes

— promoting saf e and healthy housing

— is clear, the housing codes were an ineffective means of advancing the policy. Code enforcement has often been lax if not inconsistent, and the sanctions for violations have been characterized as comparatively mild. Joel R. Levine, The Warranty of Habitability , 2 Conn. L. Rev. 61, 73 (1969). According to one commentator,34

F.2 d at 1080 (finding housing code requires warranty of habitability be implied); Boston Hous ing Auth. v. Hemingway , 293 N.E.2d 831, 840 (Mass. 1973) (emphasizing role of housing codes in stimulating common law development); Pines v. Perssion , 111 N.W.2d 409, 41 2

– 1 3 (Wis. 1961) (following old rule of caveat emptor is “inconsistent with the current legislative policy regarding housing standards”)

. S ee generally Glendon, 23 B.C. L. Rev. at 505. As a result, it is not surprising that the leading cases establishing an implied warranty of habitability repeatedly justify the rule by reference to the pu blic interest. See Foisy v. Wyman , 515 P.2d 160, 164 (Wash. 1973) (en banc) (“We believe this type of bargaining by the landlord with the tenant is contrary to public policy and the purpose of the doctrine of [ the ] implied warranty of habitability.”)

. S ee generally Lawrence Berger, The New Residential Tenancy Law

— Are
Landlords Public Utilities? , 60 Neb. L. Rev. 707 (1981); Roger A. Cunningham, The New Implied and Statutory Warranties of Habitability in
Residential Leases: From Contract to Status , 16 Urb. L. Ann. 3 (1979) [hereinafter Cunningham].
3. Remedies by tenants for breaches of implied warranty of habitability . Once courts determined that an implied warranty of habitability existed as a matter of substantive law, questions of remedy inevitably a rose. One strand of cases involved the ability of tenants to make necessary repairs and then recover the reasonable cost of labor and materials from the landlord. For instance, in Pines , the court held

“[h]ousing code enforcement has been notoriously unsuccessful.” Id . Common law courts adopted the implied warrant of habitability to advance the policies behind h ousing codes by offering a potentially more effective remedy. Creating a private right of action for violation of public wrongs has solid legal provenance. See Altz v. Lieberson , 134 N.E. 703, 704 (N.Y. 1922) (Cardozo, J.); Ezra Ripley Thayer, Public Wro ng and Private Action , 27 Harv. L. Rev. 317, 320 (1914). _________________________35

that tenants were entitled to the return of rental d eposits plus the costs of labor for making such repairs. 111 N.W.2d at 413. Similarly, in
Marini v. Ireland , the court approved a recovery when the tenant repaired a cracked toilet and associated water leak. 265 A.2d 526, 528, 535 (N.J. 1970). In Jacks on v. Rivera , a case that is somewhat similar to the facts of this dispute, the court considered a similar tenant repair remedy, but found, as a matter of fact, that the tenant failed to prove that she paid a
certain sum for a new front door and had been r equired to pay for a window not broken by her. 318 N.Y.S.2d 7, 11 (Civ. Ct. 1971). The notion the tenant may, under some circumstances, perform the repairs needed to bring housing into compliance with the implied warranty is
well

- established in the casel aw. 4. Development of Iowa common law implied warranty of habitability. In Fetters v. City of Des Moines , we observed that “the rule of caveat emptor ordinarily applies as between lessor and lessee.” 260 Iowa 490, 496, 149 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1967), overruled in part by Mease , 200 N.W.2d at 794, 796. F ive years later , however, in Mease , we embarked on a new course notwithstanding the landlord’s stentorian proclamation that a departure from precedent would “wreck our way of
life.” 200 N.W.2d at 797

. Iowa then embraced a common law implied warranty of fitness and habitability in residential leases in Mease

. Id. at 796. In holding that every lease implied a warranty of habitability, we
relied on the seminal case of Javins

. Id. at 795

. 12 We noted that the

12 Javins has been compared to Goldberg v. Kelly , 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970) , in its importance to protecting low

- income people. See David A. Super, The Rise and Fall of the Implied Warranty of Habitability , 99 Cal. L. Rev. 389, 391 (2011) [hereinafter Super].36

Javins c ourt emphasized, among other things, that many tenants lack the ability to rep air structures and that “ [l]ow and middle income tenants . . . would be unable to obtain any financing for major repairs since they have no long

- term interest in the property. ” Id. (quoting Javins , 428 F.2d
at 1078

– 79). We favorably cited a passage in Pines for the propositions that public policies manifested in housing standards and the need and
desirabili ty for adequate housing were “ too important t o be rebuffed by [the] obnoxious legal cliché, c aveat emptor

. ” Id

. at 794 (quoting Pines , 111 N.W.2d at 413). We further recognized that because of inequality of bargaining power, “the potential lessee is in no position to dicker about
even the most basi c necessities.” Id . at 794

– 95. We thus recognized in Mease a common law warranty of habitability and declared that under the implied warranty the leased premises “shall remain during the entire term in such condition to maintain the habitability of the d welling.” Id . at 796. While we recognized that we had upheld the doctrine of caveat emptor in prior cases, we noted that “this court reject[s] application of stare decisis to avoid perpetuating decisional law made obsolete by time.” Id . at 797

– 98;

see Haynes v. Presbyterian Hosp. Ass’n , 241 Iowa 1269, 45 N.W.2d 151 (1950) . The Mease opinion is written with confidence, and even verve, on the question of whether to adopt a common law implied warranty of habitability in Iowa.
5. The issue of waiver of t he implied warranty of habitability. The
Mease court, however, did not expressly decide whether the implied warranty of fitness and habitability could be waived or overridden by agreement of the parties. The Mease court did provide a list of factors pert inent in “testing the effect and materiality of the alleged breach.” Id. at 797. It is not explicit in Mease whether the factors were germane to37 breach or to remedy. According to Mease , factors pertinent in “testing the effect and materiality” of an all eged breach include “whether tenant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived the defects, or is estopped to raise the question of the breach.” Id

. The precise meaning of this factor, and its relationship to other factors listed by the court, is no t elaborated upon in Mease or develop ed in subsequent caselaw. The “ t esting the effect an d materiality ” language, however, suggests that there must be a present specific defect before the question of waiver or estoppel may be considered. At least one cou rt has ruled that common law warranty of habitability cannot be waived yet still
had a lis t of f actors to determine the m ateriality of the alleged breach. See Hemingway , 293 N.E.2d at 843

– 44. In any event, the majority of courts in other jurisdictions tha t have taken the issue head on have held that the common law implied warranty of habitability cannot generally be waived. These non wavier courts emphasized the public policy purposes of the implied warranty and the inability of most tenants to effectively bargain with their landlords. For example, in the leading case of Javins , the court stressed
that “the old no

- repair rule cannot coexist with the obligations imposed on the landlord by a typical modern housing code.” 428 F.2d at 1076

– 77. Following the rationale of Javins , the court in George Washington University v. Weintraub , held that public policy considerations, including inequality of bargaining power and scarcity of housing , prohibited waiver by private agreement of the parties. 458 A.2d 43, 47 ( D.C. Ct. App. 1983). Similarly, in Green v. Superior Court , the California Supreme Court emphasized that “public policy requires that landlords generally not be permitted to use their superior bargaining power to negate the warranty of habitability rule.” 517 P.2d 1168, 1173 n.9 (Cal. 1974) (en38 banc). Other cases offer similar rationales for nonwaiver of the implied warranty of habitability. See Knight , 623 P.2d at 273 (stating the “reasons which imply the existence of the warranty of habitability . . . compel the conclusion” that the warranty cannot be waived); Fair v. Negley , 390 A.2d 240, 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978) (emphasizing that “[w]ere we to permit waiver of the implied warranty by an express provision in the lease, it would be a rare lease in whi ch the waiver would not appear”); Foisy , 515 P.2d at 164

– 65 (rejecting bargaining between landlord and disadvantaged tenant over habitability); Teller v. McCoy , 253 S.E.2d 114, 130

– 31 (W. Va. 1978) (holding waivers of warranty are against public policy) ; s ee Shelby D. Green, Paradoxes, Parallels and Fictions: The Case for Landlord Tort Liability Under the Revised Uniform
Residential Landlord

- Tenant Act , 38 Hamline L. Rev. 407, 446 (2015). There are, however, a few squishy cases which, like Mease , ambiguous ly suggest that whether a tenant had “waived the defect” might be a factor to be considered somewhere along the line in the analysis. See Kline , 276 A.2d at 252 (stating that “whether the tenant waived the defects” is a factor in “deciding if there has be en a breach”);
Berzito v. Gambino , 308 A.2d 17, 22 (N.J. 1973) (citing a laundry list of nonexhaustive factors for determining whether there “has been a breach of the covenant of habitability” by the lessor, including “ [c] an the tenant
be said to have waiv ed the defect or be estopped to complain?”). Wheth er and under what conditions a w aiver would outweigh the other factors is not explained. Further, the precise requirements for such a waiver, such as whether it must be supported by consideration independ ent of the rental agreement, whet her it arises solely from after

- the

- fact settlement agreements, whether the defect is waived only when there is a failure of the tenant to give the landlord timely notice of the problem and a39 reasonable opportunity to repai r, or whether there must be evidence of actual and balanced bargaining related to the waiver, is not explored in
the cases. It is possible, however, to partially reconcile the cases. The nonwaiver cases generally stand for the proposition that categorica l waivers of the implied warranty of habitability prior to the actual damage that requires repair are barred. Thus, detailed anticipatory language in a form lease agreement waiving the implied warranty of habitability is barred. Once a potential breach o ccurs, however, the parties may then separately negotiate for the repair, provided that any subsequent agreement is fairly bargained, is supported by consideration independent of the underlying lease, and resolves the und erlying habitability problem.
The R estatement (Second) of Property: Landlord and Tenant, however, appears to have taken the view that the implied warranty of habitability was subject to negotiation between the landlord and tenant.
The Restatement (Second) provides that “ [ e ] xcept to the ex tent the parties to a lease validly agree otherwise ,” a landlord breaches his or her duties if the residential premises is not suitable for residential use. Restatement (Second) of Prop.: Landlord & Tenant § 5.5(1 ), at 205 (1977 & Supp. 2015) [hereinafter Restatement (Second)] ; see also id

. at § 5.6 , at 215

. 13 What constitutes a “valid agreement,” however, is not explored.
See id. § 5.5(1), at 205. Further, R estatement (Second) sec tion 5.3, comment c states, “T he tenant as a matter of law is unable to waive any remedies available to him at the time of entry, if at the time of entry it

13 If the Restatement (Second) is viewed as generally permitting waivers of the implied warranty of habitability by contract in states that have recognized the common law implied warranty of habitability, it represents a minority position. If, however, the Restatement (Second) recognized that a valid contractual provision cannot be contrary to the public policy embraced in the implied warranty cases, it is on firmer groun d.40 would be unsafe or unhealthy to use the leased property in the manner contemplated by the parties.” Id. § 5.3 cmt

. c , at 190. A dditionally, a Reporter’s Note states, “ T he rule of this section does not allow waiver of housing code violations [because of] public policy considerations.” Id. § 5.3, reporter’s note 3; see also Cunningham, 16 Urb. L. Ann. at 96

– 97.
As with the caselaw , academic authorities come to varied conclusions regarding the waivability of the common law implied warranty of habitability. One authority notes that if the implied warranty of habitability read into leases could be waived by the landlord inserting

exc ulpatory language into the same lease, very little would be accomplished. See Ted L. Hansen, Current Interest Areas of Landlord

Tenant Law in Iowa , 22 Drake L. Rev. 376, 388 (1973) (“[T]he same reasons that necessitate an implied warranty of habitability would also necessitate prohibition again st waiver of that warranty.”). Another leading authority noted that “[a]lthough one might be tempted to conclude that if the tenant read, understood, and signed the lease the repugnant clause should be enforced, thi s conclusion is erroneous.” Rabin, 69 Cornell L. Rev. at 582. Because of the market defects including heavy transaction and information costs and the practical absence of competition among landlords concerning such terms, courts should refuse to enforce such exculpatory clauses absent “truly effective bargaining.” Id. at 583.
B. Provisions of the Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord and
Tenant Act. In 1972, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Unif. Residential
Landlord & Tenant Act , 7B U.L.A. 289 (2001) . In 1978, Iowa adopted its version of the Uniform Act. 1978 Iowa Acts ch. 1172 (codified at Iowa Code ch. 562A (1981)). As was noted by a leading contemporary41
commentator, the Iowa statute was a cl ose facsimile of the URLTA. See
Lo vell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 255.
The IURLTA ’ s first substantive provision is a statement of purposes of the Act. Iowa Code § 562A.2

. Noteworthy is Iowa Code section 562A.2(2)( c ), which describes one of the purposes as be ing “[t]o [e] nsure that the right to the receipt of rent is inseparable from the duty to maintain the premises.” Id. § 562A.2(2)( c ). Thus, the statute emphasizes that the obligations of landlords are inextricabl y intertwined with the right to receive ren t. See id. Further, the chapter is to be “liberally construed and applied” to promote this underlying purpose. Id. § 562A.2(1). The IURLTA language regarding the duty of the landlord to maintain premises is similar to the URLTA . Iowa Code section 562A.15(1) imposes six categories of duties on landlords, including the duty to “[m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.” Id. § 562A.15(1)( b ) . With respect to two categories (landlord’s duty to provide tra sh services and to supply running water and heat), the landlord and tenant of a single

family residence may agree in writing to have the tenant perform the
landlord’s duties. Id. § 562A.15(2). In addition, the landlord and tenant may enter into written agreements that the tenant perform “specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling, but only if the transaction is entered into in good faith.” Id

. Th e IURLTA also has a strong anti waiver provision. Iowa Code section 562A.11(1)( a ) provides that a lease provision in which a party “[a]grees to waive or to forgo rights or remedies,” id. § 562A.11(1)( a ), under the Act are “prohibited,” id. § 562A.11(2). This provision ensures42 that heavily lawyered form leases cannot override the substantive provisions of the IURLTA.
C. Whether the Terms of the Lease Agreement Complies with
the IURLTA. The relationship between the statutory duty of the landlord to “[m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and
k eep the premises in a fit and habitable condition,” the statutory provision prohibiting waivers, and the statutory provision allowing a landlord and tenant to enter into written agreements that “the tenant perform . . . specified repairs,” provide s the gri st for an important issue in this appeal. See i d. § § 562A.11(1)( a ), .15(1)( b ) , .15(2). It has been characterized as “[t]he most difficult area” in residential landlord

– tenant law. Rabin, 69 Cornell L. Rev. at 582. On the one hand, the landlord argues that the s pecified

- repairs provision recognizes the ability of the landlord and tenant to freely enter into agreements allocating the duties and responsibilities of the parties as in any arm’s

- length contract. The landlord draws support from language in M ease suggesting that contractual provisions were a factor in determining the effect or materiality of the alleg ed breach. 200 N.W.2d
at 797. On the other hand, the tenant counters that if landlords may put contractual provisions in leases requiring tenant s to assume what would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord to make repairs to keep the premises fit and habitable, the substantive protection of the statutory duty of the landlord to provide and maintain a fit and habitable premise
would be lar gely eviscerated. The tenant could end up with “ the right to
pay rent and precious little else. ” Lovell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 254 & n.1 (quoting Julian H. Levi, The Legal Needs of the Poor: Problems Relating to Real Property 2 ( 196 4 ) ); see also Javins , 42 8 F.2d at 1080

– 8143 (emphasizing landlords have a continuing obligation during the lease term to maintain the premises in a fit and habitable condition); Green , 517 P.2d at 1173 n.9 (“[P]ublic policy requires that landlords generally not be permitted to use their superior bargaining power to negate the warranty of habitability rule.”); Moity v. Guillory , 430 So. 2d 1243, 1245 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (noting tenant signs one

- sided agreement to make repairs w hen premises in poor condition)

. The leading contemporar y commentator on the Iowa A ct took the latter position. Professor Lovell emphasized that the IURLTA prohibits waiver of rights. Lovell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 290; see also Iowa Code § 562A.11(1)( a ). According to Professor Lovell, The legislature has unequ ivocally spoken. The warranty of habitability and other rights afforded tenants under both Acts cannot be overcome by the inclusion of waiver clauses in a form lease. This legislation clearly overrides the vague language in Mease v

. Fox which suggested that the warranty o f habitability could be waived. Lovell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 290. Professor Lovell’s interpretation is certainly plausible. While the implied warranty of habitability protects tenants substantially, it limits
but does n ot eviscerate the contracting

- out provision of Iowa Code section 562A.15(2). A landlord and tenant, for instance, mig ht agree that a tenant perform s pecified repairs as a handy man, but the obligation to pay the costs r emains with the landlord. Or, s peci fic repairs could be limited to minor repairs that do not affect the landlord’s duty to provide a habitable premises. But is Professor Lovell’s contemporary interpretation the best approach to the Iowa statute?
We note that versions of other states’ URLT As often avoid any ambiguity regarding the scope of any potential contractual waiver by the tenant. For instance, Minneso ta law expressly provides that specified44 repairs do not include repairs necessary to keep “the premises and all
common areas . . . fit for their use intended by the parties.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.161 (1) , (2) (2015) . On the other hand, some states expressly
autho rize open

- ended contractual opt

- out provisions in unmistakable terms. For example, the Wyoming statute specifically states that “ [ a ] ny duty or obligation in this article may be

. . . modified by explicit written agreement signed b y the parties.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1

- 21

- 1202(d) ( West, Westlaw current through 2015 Gen. Sess. ). Similarly, Mississippi law provides that “the landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant perform some or all of the landlord’s duties under this section, but only if the transaction is entered into in good faith.” Miss. Code Ann. § 89

- 8

- 23(3) ( West, Westlaw current through 201 6 1st Extraordinary
Sess. ). The Iowa legislatur e did not take either approach. Yet, when we read the Iowa statute in context, a substantial limitation on the ability of the parties to waive basic protections of the
Iowa A ct as suggested by Professor Lovell may make sense. The IURLTA generally imposes six affirmative statutory duties upon a landlord regarding the leased premises. Iowa Code § 562A.15(1 ) . Specifical ly, the landlord is required to,

a
. Comply with the requirements of applicable building and housi ng codes materially affecting health and safety. b

. Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.

c
. Keep all common areas of the premises in a clean and safe condition . . .

. d. Maintain i n good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air

- conditioning, and other facilities and appliances . . .

. e. Provide and maintain appropriate receptacles and conveniences . . . for the central coll ection and removal of ashes, garbage, rubbish, and other waste

. . . .45 f. Supply running water and reasonable amounts of hot water at all times and reasonable heat . . .

. Id. The statute provides that the landlord and tenant may agree in writing that the tenant perform the landlord’s duties specified in ( e ) and ( f

) above. Id. § 562A.15(2) . The statute further provides that the landlord and tenant may agree in writin g to have the tenant “perform .

. . specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling, but only if the transaction is entered into in good faith.” Id.
Under Apartment Downtown’s approach to the “ s pecified repairs ” section, however, the landlord’s obligation to provide a f it and habitable premises under section 562A.15(1)( b ) can be undermined by a stock laundry list of specified repairs. Under the approach of the landlord, the entire listing of statutory obligations related to the fitness of the premises

— and not just the o bligations under ( e ) and ( f

) above

— may be contracted away. Further, a tenant could be liable for highly expensive repairs that occur at the end of the term of the lease even though the
tenant did not cause the un inhabitable condition to arise. Apartment Downtown’s sweeping approach is arguably inconsistent with what the legislature has declared is one of the main purposes of the IURLTA, namely, “[t]o [e] nsure that the right to the receipt of rent is inseparable from the duty to maintain the premises.”
Id

. § 562A.2(2)( c ) (emphasis added). Indeed, the statement of purpose reflects the view that the common law doctrine of independency of landlord and tenant duties has been abandoned. And, the legislature
has directed us that in our consideration of matters under the IURLTA, the statute should be “liberally construed and applied” to promote its purposes, certainly including ensuring that “the right to the receipt of46 rent is inseparable from the duty to maintain the premises.” Id. § 562A.2(1)

– (2).
Under the landlord’s interpretation, however, the right to receipt of
rent in the context of single

- family dwellings can be severed from the duty to maintain the premi ses through a detailed and well

- lawyered form contract exhaustively listing s pecified repairs. If the landlord’s position in this case is followed, the statute ensures very little with resp ect to maintaining the premises and does not ensure the receipt of rent is inseparable from the duty to maintain the premises. Indeed, under the freedom

- of

- contract approach, the duty to maintain the premises is quite separable. While the landlord’s duty to maintain a habitable prem ises has been characterized as c ritical and
cent ral to landlor d

– tenant law, it would be undermined under the landlord’s approach

. See Campbell, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. at 807;
see also Lovell, 31 Drake L. Rev. at 310; Ri chard L. Costella & Christopher S. Morris, West Virginia Landlord and Tenant Law: A Proposal for Legislative Reform , 100 W. Va. L. Rev. 389, 419 (1997)

. Fu rther, as noted in the case law regarding the common law implied warranty of habitability, the duty is rooted substantially in public policy. Comment to section 2.104 (d) of the URLTA notes that “[s] tandards of habitability dealt with in this section are a matter of public police power rather than the contract of the parties or special
landlord

- tenant legislation .” Unif. Residential Landlord & Tenant Act § 2

. 104 (d) cmt., 7B U.L.A. 326

– 28 . The comment recognizes that interests beyond the parties are implicated by the implied warranty. Glendon, 23 B.C. L. Rev. at 553. This comment plainly cuts against shifting of the duty to the tenant to provide a fit and habitable premises
in lease doc uments.47

It thus could be argued that the legislature’s stated purpose that the rent paid by the tenant is inseparable from the landlord’s duty to provide a fit and habitable premises is best promoted by limiting , in the case of single

- family dwellings, th e ability of the landlord to shift its duties to the tenant by contract to subsec tions ( e ) and ( f

). Iowa Code § 562A.15(1)( e )

― ( f

) , (2) . We recognize the rule of construction that the “legislative intent is expressed by omission as well as inclusion, and the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not so
mentioned.” Kucera v. Baldazo , 745 N.W.2d 481, 487 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Meinders v. Dunkerton Cmty. Sch. Dist. , 645 N.W.2d 632, 637 (Iowa 2002))

. Applying this rule of construction, the expression of contracting authority with respect to subsections ( e ) and ( f

) arguably implies the exclusion of contracting authority with respect to earlier listed obligations of the landlord. Then, looking to the relationship between associated words and phrases, see T & K Roofing Co. v. Iowa Dep ’ t of Educ. , 593 N.W.2d 159, 163 (Iowa 1999), the term “ s pecified repairs ” could be interpreted to involve matters not affecting the landlord’s obligations to provide a fit and habitable premises such as “maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling.” Iowa Code § 562A.15(2); s ee also Acad. Spires, Inc. v. Brown , 268 A.2d 556, 559 ( Essex County Ct. 1970) (listing repairs not within the scope of the implied warranty of habi tability); Myron Moskovitz, The Implied Warranty of Habitability: A New Doctrine Raising New Issues , 62 Cal. L. Rev. 1444,
1455

– 63 (1974) (providing examples). It is not necessary to reach th e question of whether the duty of the
landlord related to fitnes s and habitability can be waived by contract. Iowa Code section 562A.15(2) only authorizes the landlord and tenant to agree that the tenant will perform certain “specified repairs, maintenance48
tasks, alterations, and remodeling” of the premises. This view is advocated by an academic comment er, who interprets the specific

repairs provision of the URLTA to authorize the parties to “enter into a separate written agreement, for adequate consideration, to shift at least
some maintenance duties from the landlord to the tenant.” Cunningham, 16 Urb. L. Ann. at 96. Such an approach would be
consistent with prior caselaw in which tenants made repairs and charged
the landlords for the labor and materials. See, e.g. , Marini , 265 A.2d at 535; Jackson , 318 N. Y.S.2d at 11; Pines , 111 N.W.2d at 413. Here, the tenant did not perform the repairs. Instead, the landlord performed the repairs and attempted to charge the tenant for them

. Section 562A.15(2) permits tenants to agree to make certain repairs, but
it do es not authorize the landlord to make repairs and then shift the
costs to the tenants

. Iowa Code § 562A.15(2). As a result, even i f Iowa Code section 562A.15(2) allows the landlord and tenant to enter into agreements related to a single

- family dwelling i n which the tenant agrees to make repairs affecting the fitness and habitability of the premises, the landlord cannot prevail in this case on this theory because the landlord, and not the tenant, made the repairs to the door.
D. Whether the Landlord Complied with the Statutory Duty of Providing a Fit and Habitable Premises in T his Case. The question remains whether the landlord, even if it cannot rely on the provisions of
its lease under Iowa Code section 562A.15(2), nonethel ess still met its statutory duty to provide a premises in a fit and habitable condition.
There is no dispute in this case that without repairing the door, the leased premises would not be in “a fit and habitable condition.” Id. § 562A.15(1)( b ). The land lord suggests the duty to provide a fit and49

habitable condition is satisfied if repairs are performed, but the costs are
shifted to the tenant. We reject this approach. The scope of a legal duty surely depends upon its context. For example, an insurer d oes not meet its duty to defend by providing counsel and billing the insured. See, e.g ., Chem.
L eaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Su r. Co. , 177 F.3d 210, 223 n.17 (3d Cir. 1999). A duty to support a child or spouse does not allow the party with the obligation to provide physical support and bill the other spouse or child for the costs. Likewise, we do not think the duty of the landlord to provide a habitable premises is so narrow that a landlord may utilize the duty to in effect vest in the landlord a monopolistic right to provide marked up services to the tenant to maintain habitability. If the IURLTA were so interpreted, the statutory duty of the landlord to provide a habitable premises would be eviscerated by allowing a landlord to escape finan ci al obligations through a well

- lawyered lease provision. In light of the history of the development of landlord

– tenant law, we do not think it can be fairly concluded that the legislature intended the statutory duty of the landlord to “make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premise in a fit and habitable condition” to be satisfied by merely making repairs and shifting the costs to the tenant pursuant to categorical provisions in the original lease agreement. V. Damages for Failur e to Permit Sublease.
The landlord

– tenant agreement in this case requires the permission of the landlord before the tenant may sublease the prem ises. The provision is a silent clause in that it does not expressly require that
the land lord act in a reasona ble or non arbitrary fashion. Although there is older authority to the contrary, the modern trend is toward recognition of an implied standard of reasonableness in such an agreement. See50
Mark S. Dennison, Landlord’s Unreasonable Refusal to Consent to
Assi gnment or Sublease , 102 Am. Jur. Trials 277 § 5 , Westlaw (database updated Apr. 2016); see also Homa

- Goff Interiors, Inc. v. Cowden , 350
So. 2d 1035, 1037

– 38 (Ala. 1977); Laura Hunter Dietz, et al., 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 991 , at 905 (2006); Restatement (Second) § 15.2, at 100

– 13

. Based on these authorities, we conclude the landlord did not act reasonably when it refused to allow the sublease of the premise when it attempted to enforce an unlawful provision in the lease. As a result, the
dist rict court erred in not allowing damages as a result of the landlord’s
refusal to allow the te nant to sublease the premises.

V I
. Automatic Cleaning Deductions Fro m Rental Deposits U nder IURLTA. A. Lawfulness of Automatic Carpet

- Cleaning Provision. This brings us to Apartments Downtown’s cross

- appeal on the merits. The company argues the district court erred in holding the automatic carpet

cleaning provision violated section 562A.12 of the IURLTA.

This l ease provision reads as follows: The carpets throughout the building are professionally cleaned each time apartments turn over occupancy. Tenants agree to a charge starting at $95 (efficiency) not to exceed $225 (6+ bedrooms) being deducted from the deposit for professional cleaning at the expiratio n of the Lease. Iowa Code section 562A.12(3) authorizes only three grounds for withholding amounts from a rental deposit: ( 1 ) “[t]o remedy a tenant’s default in the payment of rent or of other funds due to the landlord pursuant to the rental agreement”; ( 2 ) “[t]o restore the dwelling unit to its condition at the commencement of the tenancy, ordinary wear and tear excepted ” ; and ( 3 ) “[t]o recover expenses incurred in acquiring possession of the premises from a tenant” who does not surrender and vacate the51

pr emises in compliance with the rental agreement. Iowa Code § 562A.12(3)( a )

– ( c )

. The problem with the carpet

- cleaning provision is that it generates
an automatic deduction from the rental deposit even when none of the conditions of section 562A.12(3) have b een met. For example, suppose a
tenant had Mary Poppins and her magical “ Spoonful of Sugar” team restore the carpet to a pristine state at the end of the leasehold. Certainly, an additional carpet cleaning would not be necessary. Nonetheless, the charge would still apply. We are not the first jurisdiction to address the legality of provisions providing for automatic deductions for carpet cleaning in lease agreements. For instance, in Ohio, which has also adopted the Uniform
Residential Landlord and Tena nt Act, it is “well

- settled” that a provision in a lease agreement providing for an automatic reduction from the
rental deposit to pay for professional carpet cleaning is unenforceable. Chaney v. Breton Builder Co. , 720 N.E.2d 941, 943 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998 ), abrogated in part on other grounds by Parker v. I & F Insulation Co. , 730 N.E.2d 972 , 977

– 79 (Ohio 2000). In another case, an Ohio court said, In the absence of an affirmative showing, by way of ite mization that there was a specific need to clean the c arpet, [landlord] ’ s unilateral deduction was improper. A lease provision regarding carpet cleaning that is inconsistent with [the Ohio provision regarding rental deposits] is unenforceable. Albreqt v. Chen , 477 N.E.2d 1150, 1153 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (cita tion omitted) . A court in another jurisdiction held that required carpet cleaning at the conclusion of a lease did not amount to “ tenant damages, waste or neglect of property” that could be deducted from the rental deposit and thus had to be supported by a separate writing. King v.
Farkas , No. 82

- 2076, 1983 WL 161598 , at *2 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 9,52 1983). By contrast, in Indiana, an appellate court concluded the landlord could require tenants to steam

- clean carpets upon the
termination of the lease and ded uct cleaning charges from the rental deposit, including charges to pay for professional carpet cleaning.
Castillo

- Cullather v. Pollack , 685 N.E.2d 478, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) , abrogated in part on other grounds by Mitchell v. Mitchell , 695 N.E.2d
920 , 923 (Ind. 1998). Indiana law, however, unlike Iowa law, allows the landlord to deduct damages for any breach of the lease from the rental deposit, and the court reasoned that the parties were free to define in the lease the condition to which the premises had to be restored at the conclusion of the lease agreement. Id. at 483 & n.4. We decline to modify the stated statutory purpose behind rental deposits. Their purpose is to ensure the tenant faithfully executes her or his duties under the lease agreeme nt. See Iowa Code § 562A.6 (defining a rental deposit as “a deposit of money to secure performance of a residential rental agreement”). The rental deposit is not designed to serve as an advance payment of amounts that will always be due under
the lease. Cf. Steenes v. MAC Prop. Mgmt., LLC , 16 N.E.3d 243, 251 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (finding that a move

- in fee, as “a one

- time upfront charge,” paid by the tenant with actual knowledge that it was
nonrefundable was not a security deposit); Kopp v. Associated Es tates Realty Corp. , No. 09AP

– 719, 2010 WL 1510196, at *5

– 6 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 15 , 2010) (determining that nonrefundable pet fee and redecorating
fee were not rental deposits because they did not secure obligations of the parties, were not intended to be a pplied toward damages, and were not deducted from the deposit); Gartz v. J & J Ass’n Holding, LLC , No. 03

– 1978, 2004 WL 202876, at *5 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 4 , 2004) ( noting that a landlord’s carpet

- cleaning fee was permissible under Wisconsin53

law because the lease did not provide that the cost would be deducted
from the rental deposit).
It is possible that a landlord may be able to impose a nonrefundable charge on tenants for automatic carpet cleaning. See Stutelberg v. Practical Mgmt. Co ., 245 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976) (finding a nonrefundable cleaning fee not part of the rental
d eposit); Holmes v. Canl en Mgmt. Corp. , 542 S.W.2d 199, 201

– 02 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)

. Additionally , the statute clearly aut horizes the
deduction of c arpet

- cleaning costs from rental deposits if necessary to restore the dwelling unit to the condition at the commencement of the tenancy, beyond the ordinary wear and tear. Iowa Code § 562A.12(3)( b ).
W hat a landlord cannot do , however, is impose an automa tic carpet

- cleaning fee and deduct such charges from a rental deposit. See Chaney , 720 N.E.2d at 944 ; Albreqt , 477 N.E.2d at 11 5 3 . Under the IURLTA, “ [ i ] f the rental deposit or any portion of a rental deposit is
withheld for the restoration of the dwelling unit,” the landlord must provide notice and the tenant must have an opportunity to contest actual damages. Iowa Code § 562A.12(3). A landlord cannot by contract extract a waiver of the notice and opportunity to contest provisions when
funds are withheld from the rental deposit. Id. § 562A.11. There is one case arguably to the contrary. In Schaefer v. Murphey , funds held in a rental deposit were characterize d as nonrefundable by contract and the refunded amount of the rental deposit
would be re duced by deducting the automatically nonrefundable fee. 640 P.2d 857, 859 (Ariz. 1982). In other words, Schaefer stands for the proposition if rental deposits were comingled with funds that the landlord had an unqualified right to receive, the amount of the rental deposit would be reduced by the nondiscretionary payment. The Iowa54 IURLTA, however, prohibits commingling of landlord funds with rental deposits. Iowa Code § 562A. 12 (2)

. Additionally , Schaefer ’s reasoning is inconsistent with our statutory sc heme, which limits the uses of rental deposits and provides a process for challenging a landlord’s asserted right to retain them. Id. § 562A.12. U nder Iowa law, rental deposits may only be used for the purposes outline d in Iowa Code section 562A.12. A landlord may not use a tenant rental deposit for any purpose other than
those listed in the statute. Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments , Ltd. , 338 N.W.2d 892 , 894

– 95 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (holding a landlord may not
withhold a tenant rental deposit for any purpose not provided for in the statute). Under Iowa Code section 562A.12 (3) , “I f the rental deposit or
any portion of the rental deposit is withheld for the restoration of the dwelling unit, the statement shall specify the nature of the damages. ” The landlord may then withhold only those amounts necessary to restore the dwelling unit to it s prior condition. Iowa Code § 562A.12(3)

. The carpet

- cleaning provision providing for automatic deductions from the rental deposit is thus unenforceable under law for the reasons
stated above , and the district court’s decision relating to it is upheld. Since we hold the provision violates the IURLTA, we need not address the small claims court’s determination that the provision was

uncon scionable. See id. § 562A.7(1)( a ) (discussing unconscionability). 14

14 At trial in the small claims court, the witness for Apartments Downtown testified that notwithstanding the lease language, the company does not automatically deduct for carpet cleaning at the end of the lease term, but makes an individualized
assessme nt of carpet cleanliness. In other words, Apartments Downtown argues that as a matter of grace, it does not enforce its otherwise impermissible lease provision. Both the small claims court and the district court treated the charge as an automatic one, an d we think this finding is supported by substantial evidence. Notably, Apartments Downtown’s deposit statement

— which included the $191 carpet

- cleaning deduction

— did not describe the condition of the carpet, but simply referred to the automatic charge prov ision in the lease. Nor are we persuaded that a landlord can defend an improper charge by arguing it could have assessed the same charge in a55

B. Bad

- Faith Penalty. Apartments Downtown next challenges the $200 in punitive damages the small claims court awarded under the IURLTA, which the distr ict court upheld. Iowa Code section 562A.12(3) requires a landlord to return a tenant’s rental deposit within thirty days from the end of the tenancy and receipt of the tenant’s mailing address or to furnish the tenant with a written statement explaining the specific
reason for withh olding the rental deposit or any portion of it. Under
section 562A.12(7), The bad faith retention of a deposit by a landlord, or any portion of the rental deposit, in violation of this section shall subject the landlord to punitive damages not to exceed t wo hundred dollars in addition to actual damages. 15
Id. § 562A.12(7). The landlord argues that the controversies in this case are good

faith disputes a nd that, as a result, the $200 p enalty under Iowa Code

s ection 562A.12(7) must be rev ersed. The tenant r esponds by citing Ikari
v. Mason Properties , 731 N.E.2d 975 (I ll. App. Ct. 2000). In that case, an Illinois appellate court assessed double damages for withholding a rental deposit in bad faith for repair and cleaning after the tenants had left
their unit. Id. at 98 0

– 8 1. Here, t he tenant argues that the retention of the deposits was not “a simple error in computati on or confusion over
dates.” The tenant further notes that the district c ourt found the automatic carpet

- cleaning and repair provisions as well as the charge s

different, proper way. We are not called upon to address the issue of whether a landlord could require the tenan t to pay in advance for a carpet cleaning as a separate charge, not included within the rental deposit. We leave that issue for another day.

15 The legislature has since amended the subsection authorizing punitive damages for the bad

- faith retention of a re ntal deposit. See 2013 Iowa Acts ch. 97, § 4. It currently provides for “punitive damages not to exceed twice the monthly rental payment in addition to actual damages.” Iowa Code § 562A.12(7) (2015). _________________________56 under them were unconscionable, thereby supporting punitive damages. 16 Regardless of the legality or enforceability of the underlying contract provisions, Iowa Code s ection 562A.12(7) permits an award of puniti ve damages only for b ad

- faith retention of the depos it or any portion of the rental deposit. The IURLTA does not define b ad

- faith
retenti on of deposit by the landlord. This is problematic as b ad faith can mean a number of different concepts, depending on context

. See
Austrum v

. Fed. Cleaning Contractors, Inc ., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 2016 WL 93404, at *6 ( S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2016) (“ ‘ Bad faith’ is an often inconsistently used phrase that has different meanings in different legal contexts.”); Staves v

. Johnson , 44 A.2d 870, 871 (D.C. 1945) (noting that good faith is “not susce ptible of exact definition”).
In some landlord

– tenant cases involving rental deposits, bad faith
has been defined somewhat broadly as including “vexatious,

unreas onable, or outrageous conduct.” Ikari , 731 N.E.2d at 980. Similarly, in McGrath v

. Mishara , the court noted that bad faith could be
shown when the landlord “knew or should have known ” that the rental deposit should not have be en withheld from the tenant. 434 N.E.2d 1215, 1219

– 20 (Mass. 1982). Using language like “should have known” and “unreasonable,” bad faith in Ikari and McGrath seems to have an objective dimension. In another case, a Texas ap pellate court declared
that bad faith for purposes of wit hholding a rental deposit i s defined as

16 Iowa Code section 562A.7 prohibits an unconscionable provision in a rental agreement. This Code provision provides that a court may refuse to enforce an unconscionable provision or limit its application to avoid an unconscionable result. Iowa Code § 562A .7(1)( a ). There is no provision for imposition of a penalty for unconscionable provisions in Iowa Code section 562A.7. If a penalty is to be imposed for use of an unconscionable provision, it must be pursuant to Iowa Code section 562A.11(2).57
“a breach of faith; willful failure to respond to plain, well understood
statut ory or contractual obligations; lack of good faith; [or] improper
motive.” Hogg v. Jaeckle , 561 S.W.2d 568, 572 ( Tex. App. 1978).
In context s other than landlord

– tenant relationships, bad faith can have an expansive meaning. Bad faith in the insurance context means “the absence of a reasonable basis for denying benefits of the policy and defendant’s knowledge or reckless disregard of t he lack of a reasonable basis for denying the claim.” Kiner v

. Reliance Ins. Co. , 463 N.W.2d 9, 12 (Iowa 1990) (quoting D ola n v. Aid Ins. Co. , 431 N.W.2d 790, 794 (Iowa 1988)) . In the context of fiduciary duty, bad faith has been described as including “ purposeful obliviousness of the known facts suggesting impropriety.” N.J. Title Ins. Co. v. Caputo , 7 48 A.2d 507, 514 (N.J. 2000).
W hile there is no definition of b ad faith in the IU RLTA, there is a
definition of g ood faith. Under the IURLTA, g ood faith is “honesty in fact
in the conduct of the transaction concerned.” Iowa Code § 562A.6(4). Although the definition of g ood faith under Iowa Code section 562A.6(4)
is similar to that found in the Uniform Commercial Code, there is a
notable difference. Und er Iowa Code section 554.1201 (2)( t ), g ood faith is
defined as “ honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” Under Iowa Code section 562A.6(4), however, there is no mention of the objective concept of reasonable c ommercial standards of fair dealing. Good faith under the IURLTA is limited to “honesty in fact.” It is e ntirely subjective.
It seems that if g ood faith amounts to “honesty in fact” under the statute, b ad faith should be the opposite, or “dishonesty in fact.”
Baldwin Cty. Hosp. Auth. v. Trawick , 504 S.E.2d 708, 710 (Ga. Ct. App.
199 8 ) (“ ‘[B] ad faith’ is the opposite of ‘good faith

. ’ ”); accord Nelson v.
Lindaman , 867 N.W.2d 1, 1 3 (Iowa 2015). If so, the test of bad faith is a58 subjec tive test based upon d ishonesty in fact by the landlord in the
landlord

– tenant relationship. See Minor v

. Adams , 694 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Tex. App. 1985) (“The t est of bad faith is whether a person acted in dishonest disregard of the righ ts of the person concerned.”). Under this approach, intentional or deliberate acts alone do not
establi sh bad faith, but the landlord’s intention must also be dishonest.
Leskinen v

. Burford , 892 S.W.2d 135, 136 ( Tex. App. 1994). A m ere mistake does not establish dishones ty in fact

. See H

- L Apartments v. Al

Qawiyy , 440 N.W.2d 371 , 373 (Iowa 1989). Further, the presence of conflicting evidence on a disputed question of fact does not establish bad
faith. Alltex Const r ., Inc. v. Alareksoussi , 685 S.W.2d 93, 95

– 96 (1984).
W e think the d ishonesty

- in

- fact approach to bad faith in the
IURLTA under Iowa Code s ection 562A.1 2(7) is the best approach in light of the definition of good faith under Iowa Code section 562A.6(4)

. Th ere is no objective element in b ad faith in Iowa Code section 562A.12(7)
because th ere is no objective element in good faith as defined in section 562A.6(4). The b urden of proving bad faith, or dishonesty in fact , rests with the tenant. Lewis v

. Jaeger , 818 N.W.2d 165, 187 (Iowa 2012). Bad faith, being a st ate of mind, may be established by substantial circumstantial evidence as well as by substantial direct evidence. Roeder

v

. Nolan , 321 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1982). Upon our review of the factual record in this case, we do no t find
subst antial evidence of d ishonesty in fact in connection with the use of the unlawful automatic carpe t

- cleaning charge. We have held that the landlord improperly structured the automatic cleaning charge by linking payment of the mandat ory fee to the rental dep osit. But while the
landlord has used a lease provision that we have found illegal, there is no
evidence of subjective dishonesty in fact in this record. The landlord did59 not make any misrepresentations to the tenant, but simply used a
structure that we have concluded is prohibited by the IU R LTA. By simply raising rental rates, the landlord could have obtained the amount of funds sufficient to offset any discretionary decision by the landlord to automatically clean the carpet in an apartment at the end o f a tenancy. Under all the facts and circumstances, we cannot say on the current
record that there is substantial evidence that the landlord’s use of the fully disclosed automatic cleaning charge am ounted to d ishonesty in fact
under Iowa Code s ection 562A .12(7). In the alternative, the tenant asserts that the landlord’s retention
of late fees fro m the deposit for nonpayment of the cost of the door
rep air, which it characterized as rent , was in bad faith

. The landlord does not challenge the conclusion of the district court that the imposition of these late fees was improper. The landlord does assert, however, that ( 1) the unpaid maintenance charges under the lease when they are due become a payment owed to the landlord, ( 2) as a payment due to the landlord, the unpaid maintenanc e charge is considered part of r ent

― see Iowa Code section 562A.6( 9 ) (defining “rent ” as “a payment to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement ” ) , ―and ( 3) as rent, the landl ord was entitled to deduct the entire amount owed from the rental deposit under Iowa Code section 562A.12(3)( a ) (authorizing deduction from rental deposits of to cure default of the tenant “in the payment of rent or of other funds due to the landlord purs u ant to the rental agreement ”). In
any even t, as with the automatic carpet

- cleaning deposit, no one has claimed that the lease provisions were misrepresented in any way or that the provisions were not fully disclosed in the lease. Although the
landlord’s argument may be unpersuasive on the merits, we do not think there is substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that60

the landlord engaged in subjective d ishonesty in fact under Iowa Code

s ection 562A.12(7) with respect to the issues raised in connection with
deduction of the door

- repair expenses. This is not to say that a tenant has no remedy for use of unlawful provisions in a rental agreement , at least under some circumstances

. Iowa Code s ection 562A.11(2 ) provides that a landlord may not willfully use a lease provision known by the landlord to be prohibited under the
IURLTA. The statute provides for actual damages “and not more than
three months ’ period ic rent and reasonable attorney fees” for knowing

us e of an illegal provision. Id

. ; see Caruso v . Apts. Downtown, Inc ., ___ N.W.2d ___ , ___ (Iowa 2016). No claim, however, has been presented in this case under this statutory provision

. 17
VI I
. Attorneys’ Fees. In this case, the tenant submitted two affidavits related to attorneys’ fees to the magistrate after the matter was submitted. Lead
counsel Warnock submitt ed an affidavit. So did second

- chair counsel Boyer. The landlord resisted on grounds of lateness and that granting
the fee s would cause the small claims court to lack jurisdiction of the case. Before the magistrate could rule on the question, the landlord

17 There is a n argument that the penalty provisions of Iowa Code section 562A.11(2) and Iowa Code section 562A.12(7) are mutually exclusive. Iowa Code section 562A.11(2) is arguably directed at the use of unlawful statutory provisions and requires that the provision is k nown by the landlord to be unlawful. Iowa Code section 562A.12(7) is arguably directed not at illegal provisions in a lease but instead toward factual disputes associated with retention of rental deposits. Each provision h as its own statutory penalties. One may question whether the legislature intended the penalty provisions to be cumulative. For example, if a landlord utilizes a provision known to be illegal and is thus subject to penalties under Iowa Code section 562A.1 1(2), does that expose the landlord to bad

- faith penalties under Iowa Code section 562A.12(7) as well? This seems like double dipping. The parties have not raised the question of the relationship between penalty provisions in Iowa Code section 562A.11(2) and section 562A.12(7) in this case. In any event, it is not necessary to consider the relationship in light of our disposition of the contested issues on other grounds.61 appealed to district court and the magistrate did not enter a ruling on the attorneys’ fee issue. On appeal, the distric t court concluded that the attorney fee affidavit filed by Attorney Christine Boyer on June 21, 2013 includes [a] sufficient breakdown of the attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiff’s counsel such that the court can, and does, determine that th e fees sought ar e reasonable. The district court did not specifically mention the fees of lead counsel
Warnock. On appeal to this court, tenant seeks an award of the attorneys’
fees of lead counsel Warnock. The landlord concedes error was preserved on the issue. The la ndlord argues the district court was in the best position to evaluate the work of counsel and that the fe es sought by
lead counsel were e xcessive. The landlord also argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter b ecause the claim, with a ttorney s ’ fees, exceeded the $5000 jurisdictional limit of small claims court. Finally, the landlord also contends that the tenant was not a prevailing party in the litigation and is therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. We have rejected these last two claims. Thus, the only remaining issue
raised is whether the fees sought by the tenant were e xcessive, as claimed by the landlord, or reasonable, as claimed by the tenant. See Iowa Code § 562A.12(8)

. As a preliminary matter, however, we consider a q uestion of whether the tenant was required to file in the district court a motion to enlarge or expand under Iowa Rule of Civil Pro cedure 1.904 in order to preserve the issue. We have held that because Iowa Code chapter 631
contain s no express provision f or post trial motions with respect to appeals to the district court, p ost trial motions are not available at this stage of the proceeding. See Midwest Recovery Servs. v. Cooper , 46562 N.W.2d 855, 856 (Iowa 1991). This case is in a slightly different posture,
as it does not involve an appeal from a magistrate to the district court but instead a discretionary appeal from the district court to this court.
We have cited Midwest Reco very , however, in support of the pro position that there are no post trial motions on appeal from a small claims court judgment. See GE Money Bank , 773 N.W.2d at 539. The principle embraced in Midwest Recovery is fully applicable here. The trial of the m atter occurred before the magistrate in this case. The case was then appealed to the district court. Midwest Recovery makes clear that a motion for expanded findings is not available when the case is tried under Iowa Code chapter 6 3 1 . 465 N.W.2d at 855

– 57

. If so, logic dictates there is no basis for a rule 1.904 motion after the district court has determined the small claims appeal. Aside from our case law and th e lack of authorization of post trial motions in Iowa Code chapter 631, grafting rule 1.904(2 ) into small claims proceedings would be poor policy. The parties in small claims court are often unrepresented by attorneys . Our caselaw, however, demonstrates that Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904 can be complicated. In close cases, even a skilled l awyer has difficulty determining whether a rule 1.904 motion should be filed. A misstep, however, may result in waiver of a claim or even loss of an appeal. Requiring small claims litigants to understand the intricacies of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 904(2) cuts against the policy of Iowa Code chapter 631 of providing a swift and simple procedure for determining disputes. Further, the complexity of trial procedure is one of the reasons the implied warranty of habitability has been ineffective. See Su per, 99 Cal. L. Rev. at 440. Small claims court is , after all, “the people’s court” where emphasis belongs on simplicity and fairness for pro se litigants. Kimble v

. Kimble , 264 P.3d 1229, 1231

– 32 (Okla. 2011).63 With that necessary digression, we now turn to the issue the parties have asked us to decide, namely, whethe r the fees of lead counsel

are e xcessive. While we could, perhaps, decide the issue on appeal, we think the better approach at this stage is to remand the question of Warnock’s attorney ’ s fe es to the district court to allow the district court in the first instance to consider the reasonableness of the fee request of lead counsel. We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. GreatAmerican , 691 N.W.2d at 732. As a result, the district court should evaluate Warnock’s fee application in the first instance. On remand, the district court should further determine the merits of any claim for appellate attorneys’ fees. See Ayala , 415 N.W.2d
at 606 ; Crouch , 28 7 N.W.2d at 154.
VI I I. Conclusion. For the above reasons, we affirm the district court in favor of the
tenant on the issue of jurisdiction and cleaning costs. We reverse the decision of the district court adverse to the tenant on the issue of liability for the door repair and on the claim for damages for failure to permit the tenants from subleasing the apartment. We also reverse the district court decision on punitive damages adverse to the landlord under Iowa Code s ection 562A.12(7). On the issue of attorneys’ fees, we affirm the judgment of the district court as to the reasonableness of fees awarded attorney Boyer, but remand for a determ ination of reasonable attorney fees in connection with attorney Warnock’s work on this case and for consideration of any claim for appellate attorney s’ fees. Costs are assessed to Apartments
Downtown. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. All justices concur except Mansf ield, Waterman , and Zager , JJ., who concur in part and dissent in part

.64 #14

– 0820, De Stefano v. Apartments Downtown, Inc. MANSFIELD, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part because I disagree with two conclusions reached by the court. In particular, I do not think small claims courts can award unlimited attorneys’ fees without regard to the $5000 jurisdictional limit. Nor do I think the Iowa Uniform
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ac t (IURLTA) makes it illegal for the landlord and the tenant of a single

- family home to agree that the tenant will be financially responsible for a repair to an exterior door that is vandalized during the tenancy.
I. Small Claims Jurisdiction.
I would hold that attorneys’ fees count against the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court. The statute provides that the small claims court has jurisdiction over those “civil action[s] for a money judgment where the amount in controversy is . . . five thous and dollars or less . . . exclusive of interest and costs.” Iowa Code § 631.1(1) (2011). So, the question is whether attorneys’ fees are costs or not. This is an important question because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If a college student represented by a legal aid agency can recover her attorneys’ fees from a landlord in small claims court, so can a debt collector suing an indigent working single parent. We are interpreting one term, “costs,” in one statute, Iowa Code
section 631.1 . We cannot have the term mean one thing for plaintiffs who are tenants and something different for other plaintiffs. And

a lthough the matter is not free from doubt, I believe the majority’s view of
the matter is erroneous for several reasons. First, as the court acknowledges, we have consistently interpreted statutes that use the term “costs” alone to exclude attorney fees. See65

Weaver Constr. Co. v. Heitland , 348 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984) (“We do not agree, however, that the word ‘costs’ [in chapte r 677] should be so liberally stretched as to include attorney fees.”); Turner v. Zip Motors , 245 Iowa 1091, 1100, 65 N.W.2d 427, 432 (1954) (“[Section 625.1] has always been held to mean the ordinary costs, not including attorney fees.”). I am not aware of a single contemporary Iowa statute lacking the phrase “attorney fees” while using the term “costs” alone that has been interpreted to award attorney fees as costs. Why start here? Second, I am not persuaded that when the general assembly
enacted the Un ified Court Act in 1972, it intended to adopt caselaw from 1882 and 1932 relating to the old court system. The statute setting forth the jurisdictional limits in the old system was worded differently. See Iowa Code § 601.2 (1971) (stating that justice

- of

- the

- peace courts had jurisdiction “where the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars”). As the majority recognizes, the whole idea of the Unified Court Act was to create a new and better system than what had gone before. And
when the legislature did so, it seems to have consciously borrowed from the federal diversity statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012) (“ The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs . . . .”); 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1124, § 60 (codified at Iowa Code § 631.1 (1973)) (“A small claim is a civil action for money damages where the amount in controversy in money is one thousand dollars or less,
exclus ive of interests and costs . . . .”). Under the federal diversity statute, it was well understood that attorneys’ fees were separate from “interest and costs.” See, e.g. , Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Jones , 290 U.S. 199, 202, 54 S. Ct. 133, 134, 7866

L. Ed. 267, 269 (1933); 14AA Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3712, at 806 (4th ed. 2011) . So I would be more inclined to follow the federal interpretations of the diversity statute as a guide to interpret ing Iowa Code section 631.1. See Peoples Trust & Sav. Bank v. Armstrong , 297 N.W.2d 372, 373

– 75 (Iowa 1980) (noting the resemblance between the wording of Iowa Code
section 631.1(1) and that of the federal diversity statute and applying federal diversity precedents to determine when interest counts against the small claims jurisdictional limit). Furthermore, in the original 1972 Unified Court Act, when the word “costs” was used in other contexts, it clearly did not include attorneys’ fees. See 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1124, § 65 (codified at Iowa Code § 631.6 (1973)) (“Fees and costs shall be one

- half of fees and costs in regular civil actions in district court.”). “When the same term appears multiple times in the same statute, it should have the sa me meaning
each time.” State v. Paye , 865 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015). Another reason to interpret costs in the small claims jurisdictional statute as something different from attorneys’ fees is that it furthers the legislature’s goal of “a simpler, easier, and less expensive procedure” in which the parties “need not retain a n attorney unless they wished.” Barnes Beauty Coll. v. McCoy , 279 N.W.2d 258, 259

– 260 (Iowa 1979). Plainly, if attorneys’ fees don’t count against the jurisdictional limit, that is an incentive for parties to use attorneys in small claims court. And
the presence of an attorney, while generally desirable if the matter is significant, tends to undermine the informality of the proceeding. 18 From

18 The majority uses the apt phrase: “the people’s court.” Thus, our court declined t o give “preclusive effect to small claims adjudications in subsequent regular district court trials [because to do so] would be inconsistent with maintaining the67 the very beginning, the legislature made clear that small claims cases don’t need attorneys. See 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1124, § 70 (codified at Iowa Code § 631.11 (1973)). Under the majority’s approach, some small claims defendants may be subject to substantial judgments

— but without the procedural protections afforded in district court. It is antithetical to the purpos e of small claims court to allow potentially open

- ended attorney

- fee recoveries that could dwarf the stated small claims jurisdictional limit. Finally, I am not persuaded that the out

- of

- state authority on
which the court relies

— particularly Lettenmaier v . Lube Connection, Inc ., 741 A.2d 591 (N.J. 1999)

— has any bearing on this issue. The New Jersey court rule involved in Lettenmaier has different wording from
Iowa’s statute. See id. at 593 (quoting New Jersey Rule 6:1

– 2( a )(1), which mentions only “the am ount in controversy”). Furthermore, unlike my colleagues, I would not even give minimal weight to Lettenmaier ’s citation of two Iowa cases because it miscited
them. See id. at 594

– 95 (citing Ayala v. Ctr. Line, Inc ., 415 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 1987); Maday v. Elview

- Stewart Sys. Co ., 324 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 1982)). Lettenmaier cited Maday for “examining structure of statute allowing counsel fees and concluding that, because such fees were grouped with costs, they were costs.” Id . at 594. Lettenmaie r cited Ayal a for “refusing to consider attorney fees in determining whether jurisdictional limit had been exceeded because they are separate and distinct events giving rise to cause of action and cannot be assessed until

simplicity and informality of small claims procedures.” Village Supply, Inc. v. Iowa Fund, In c. , 312 N.W.2d 551, 554 (Iowa 1981). _________________________68 liability is established.” Id. at 595. I can ’t find those propositions anywhere in Maday and Ayala

. 19 II. Lease Provisions Making Tenants Responsible for Costs of Repairing an Exterior Door Damaged by Third

- Party Vandalism. The lease between Apartments Downtown

— on the one hand

— and Elyse De Stefano and her housemates

— on the other hand

— is three pages long. De Stefano testified she did not read the lease before signing it, but she does not dispute that she assented to its terms . She testified that no one misrepresented what was in the lease. In paragraph 30, the lease provides, “Tenants agree to pay for all damages to the apartment windows, screens, and doors, including exterior unit doors (including random acts of vandalism) .” The lease also provides in paragraph 33, “Unless the Landlord is negligent, Tenants are responsible for the cost of all damages/repairs to windows, screens, doors, carpet, and walls, regardless of whether such damage is caused by residents, guests or o thers.” Additionally, the lease contains a $452

– $690 estimated cost for the repair or replacement of a prehung entry
door. The lease further provides that the landlord’s Iowa City Maintenance would perform all repairs “unless written authorization is

se cured from Landlord.” It states that Iowa City Maintenance charges $70 per hour during regular business hours and $90 per hour during nights and weekends, with a minimum of one hour per service call. Iowa City Maintenance is an alter ego of Apartments Do wntown.

19 To be clear, I have no quarrel with how my colleagues have summarized Maday and Ayala in their majority opinion. But it is wrong to give the Lettenmaier decision any credence because it happens to cite to Maday and Ay ala

.69

The three

- page lease has some circling and other marks on it. Some of the marks are in the vicinity of the foregoing provisions. According to the business manager of Apartments Downtown, the presence of these markings confirmed that specific pr ovisions of the lease were actually reviewed with the tenants before they signed it. As summarized by the district court, “The Court finds no evidence in the record that there was a lack of honesty in fact in the conduct of the
transaction concerned.”
The door replacement charge and the subsequent late fees stemmed from a burglary that occurred at De Stefano’s residence in
October 2010. De Stefano and the other tenants filed a police report with the Iowa City Police Department. The report stated that the burglary had left the exterior doorframe and the door lock damaged, and the tenants reported two or three cans of beer as well as a bottle of flavored vodka stolen. Apartments Downtown was called to repair the
door on October 11

— presumably by De Stefano or one of her cotenants. Apartments Downtown arranged for Iowa City Maintenance to replace the kicked

- in door, and the charges were billed to De Stefano and her roommates. The total cost of the repair and replacement was $598.46, which included $318.46 fo r the replacement door and $280 for four hours of labor. Upon receipt of this charge, one of De Stefano’s housemates sent a letter dated November 2 to Apartments Downtown, contesting the charge and advising that the damage was not caused by any of the ten ants and that the police investigation was ongoing. In her letter, the tenant referenced paragraph 30 of the lease agreement, which stated, “Tenants agree to pay all damages to the apartment windows, screen, and doors, including exterior unit doors (inclu ding random acts70 of vandalism).” Yet the tenant said she believed this lease provision to be unconscionable and thus unenforceable by a court. Apartments Downtown responded on November 17, By signing the lease agreement you agree to pay for all damages t o the apartment windows, screens, and doors, including exterior unit doors, including random acts of vandalism. If . . . the door was broken down during a burglary, the destruction of the door is considered vandalism . . . . Even though the door was dama ged during the break in, and not by a guest of the tenants, it still falls under the basis o[f] a visitor, whether they were a known guest or not

. . . . [I]f the police investigation results in the finding of the guilty party that was responsible for the damage, then at that time we would be more than happy to charge said person(s) for the damage. Until then however, the damage incurred to the property fall[s] under the responsibility of the leased tenants. At this time you currently still have an outsta nding balance of 598.46 on your account, if this would happen to still be current when December[’]s rent comes due, it will accumulate the standard $40.00 late charge. A principal bone of contention between the parties is whether the IURLTA permits the les sor and the lessee of a single

- family home to agree in writing that the lessee will be responsible for the repair of a door damaged by third

- party vandalism during the lessee’s tenancy. My colleagues ultimately do not decide this issue, but they frame the issue
in such one

- sided terms that I feel obligated to respond. Section 562A.15(1) of the IURLTA imposes a warranty of habitability on the landlord. Iowa Code § 562A.15(1) (2011) Among other things, the landlord shall “[c]omply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety” and “[m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.” See id. § 562A.15(1)( a )

– ( b ). However, the duties in subsect ion (1) of section 562A.15 are immediately qualified by subsection (2):71 The landlord and tenant of a single family residence may agree in writing that the tenant perform the landlord’s duties specified in paragraphs “ e ” and “ f

” [relating to waste removal and the provision of water, hot water, and heat], and also specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling, but only if the transaction is entered into in good faith.
Id . § 562A.15(2) (emphasis added.) My colleagues present a lengthy argu ment as to why subsection (2) affects only paragraphs ( e ) and ( f

) of subsection (1) and not the rest of the subsection. In other words, according to this argument, the tenant of a single

- family residence may not agree to assume any responsibilities
relati ng to the implied warranty of habitability except those covered by paragraphs ( e ) and ( f

). The majority does not ultimately adopt this position, but it does not acknowledge or even mention the counterarguments against this view. The biggest problem with t his interpretation of the IURLTA is that it gives no effect to the language after “and also” in subsection (2). See
id. § 4.4(2) (setting forth the presumption that “[t]he entire statute is intended to be effective”). Clearly, the language “and also speci fied repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling” must refer to landlord duties other
than those set forth in paragraphs ( e ) and ( f

). Otherwise, the language would be totally superfluous. Driving this point home is that our legislature used t he separator “and also,” indicating that what followed “and also” was going to be something different from what preceded it. Furthermore, it is difficult to conceive of alterations and remodeling that would be needed to provide waste removal, water, hot w ater, or heat, if indeed the entire subsection only applied to the duties in paragraphs ( e ) and ( f

).7 2 Equally clearly, the language “and also specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling” must relate to landlord duties covered by paragraphs (1)( a ), (1)( b ), (1)( c ), or (1)( d )

. For one thing, section 562A.15(2) is placed within the statute and written as if it were a qualifier to section 562A.15(1) as a whole. Moreover, if the terminology “specified repai rs, maintenance tasks, alterations, and remodeling” did
not relate to matters that would otherwise be landlord duties under paragraphs (1)( a ), (1)( b ), (1)( c ), or (1)( d ), the language would again be totally superfluous. Under a separate section of the IURL TA, landlords
and tenants can always agree to various things in their leases if their agreements are not contrary to the terms of the IURLTA

— and there is no “good faith” requirement. See id. § 562A.9(1) (stating that “[t]he landlord and tenant may include in a rental agreement, terms and conditions not prohibited by this chapter or other rule of law”). The legislature did not need to include the verbiage after “and also” to authorize the same thing. Furthermore, the term “specified repairs” in subsection (2) seemingly corresponds with language in paragraph (1)( b ) requiring the landlord to “[m]ake all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.” Iowa Code § 562A.15(1)( b ), .15(2). Under the argument o ffered by the majority, repairs has to mean something different in two subsections of the same statute. That seems unlikely. See Paye , 865 N.W.2d at 7 (indicating that the same term should have the same meaning when it appears multiple
times in the same statute). Oddly, after scouring the country for out

- of

- state caselaw to support its interpretation of Iowa’s sui generis small claims jurisdictional statute, including the aforementioned New Jersey case, the majority73 omits discussion of pertinent out

- of

- st ate caselaw here

— even though we are talking about a uniform act adopted in many jurisdictions. Existing caselaw interpreting the URLTA undermines the argument presented by the majority. In Sullivan v. Subramanian , 2 P.3d 66 (Alaska 2000), the court refere nced the duties in Alaska’s counterpart to paragraphs (1)( a ), (1)( b ), (1)( c ), and (1)( d ), and then added, “Barring circumstances that do not exist here, landlords are prohibited from shifting these duties to their tenants.” Id. at 69

– 70 (emphasis added). In a footnote, the court then revealed the circumstances under which those duties could be shifted by citing the “specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations, or remodeling” language in Alaska’s counterpart to
section 562 A.15(3). Id . at 70 n.8. The court also cited a prior Alaska

case, see id ., which indicated that Alaska’s counterpart to section 562A.15(3) “governs landlords’ attempts to shift duties such as the maintenance of common areas [found in the counterpart to I owa Code section 562A.15(1)( b )] to tenants,” Coburn v. Burton , 790 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Alaska 1990). Similarly, in L & M Investments Co. v. Morrison , 605 P.2d 1347, 1350 (Or. Ct. App. 1980), the court cited Oregon’s counterpart to section 562A.15(1) and sa id, “[I]t is presumed that the stated rental is for premises in a habitable condition and the landlord is estopped from contending otherwise, at least in the absence of an express written agreement pursuant to [Oregon’s counterpart to section 562A.15(3)].”
In Graber v. Engstrom , 384 N.W.2d 307, 308 (N.D. 1986), there was a scenario like the present one where the landlord of a single

- family residence (a mobile home) argued that the lease had transferred certain habitability obligations to the tenant includ ing the obligation to repair a broken window. Discussing North Dakota’s counterpart to Iowa Code74 section 562A.15, the court indicated this shifting of responsibility would
be lawful:
Section 47

– 16

– 13.1(1), N.D.C.C ., among other things, requires a landlord of a residential dwelling unit to comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety; to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable c ondition; and to maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, and other facilities and appliances supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord. Section 47

– 16

– 13.1(4), N.D.C.C ., however, allows the landlord and tenant of a single

- family residence to agree in writing that the tenant perform the landlord’s duties concerning specified repairs, maintenance tasks, alterations and remodeling if the transaction is entered into in good faith.
Id. at 308

– 09 (citation omitted). However, the court found the lease provision in question was “vague as to the specific maintenance tasks intended to be delegated to” the tenant and therefore upheld the lower court’s fact determination that they did not incl ude the matters at issue.
Id. at 309

– 10.
Also , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, interpreting a statute somewhat different from the uniform act but with nearly identical wording in relevant part to Iowa Code section 562A.15(2), said,
It is . . . clear that the landlord may shift the responsibility for performing ordinary specified repairs and maintenance of the rented dwelling premises to the tenant, provided that the parties act in good faith; the parties agree in writing; the agreement is supported by adeq uate consideration; and the agreement is not in violation of [the Rhode Island statute governing landlord’s maintenance duties and the landlord’s ability to contract them away].
State Water Res. Bd. v. Howard , 729 A.2d 712, 715 (R.I. 1999) (per curiam). I n that case, the state leased residential properties to tenants on condition that tenants assumed the responsibility for all necessary maintenance and repairs in exchange for a deduction from the fair75

market value of rent. Id. at 713. Because the leases did not “shift the responsibility to cure existing or past violations of the applicable housing and building codes to the tenants” and the state had attempted to negotiate the repair

- shifting provisions in good faith, the challenged provisions were upheld under Rhode Island law. Id. at 715. I agree that an operating lock on an exterior door is one aspect of habitability. See Brichacek v. Hiskey , 401 N.W.2d 44, 47 (Iowa 1987) (“On the record of this case we believe that a landlord is under a duty to provid e a front door lock as a part of his overall duty of providing habitable quarters.”). And I assume that the burglary here, like most burglaries, resulted in the damaged side

- entry door no longer being secure. However, Iowa Code section 562A.15(2) does no t provide an exception for “specified repairs so long as they do not relate to habitability.” Instead, the exception is simply for specified repairs. Furthermore, if the parties’ ability to contract regarding specified repairs were limited by the landlor d’s duty to perform any repair that relates to habitability, it is easy to foresee that many disputes would arise. Some door and window repairs relate to habitability; some do not. Thus, I believe the IURLTA allows a landlord and a tenant of a single

- fam ily home to agree that the tenant will perform specified repairs, where the subject matter is specified and the task to be performed can be fairly characterized as a repair. That is what section 562A.15(2) says. Tenants living in a single

- family residence may be in a better position than a landlord who is not on the scene to safeguard doors, screens, and windows from outside harm. Note that the argument bruited by the majority applies to all landlords and tenants of single

family residences. Thus, a life long Iowan who rents her home upon76 retiring to Florida could not contract that the renter would be responsible for repairing the doors to the home. The court ultimately finds for De Stefano on an alternative, narrower ground. The court reasons that even i f De Stefano might be required to perform specified repairs under section 562A.15(2), she cannot be required to pay for such repairs when performed by the landlord. While this ground is more plausible, I do not believe the
IURLTA draws such a fine line. The IURLTA allows any provision “not prohibited by this chapter or other rule of law,” Iowa Code § 562A.9(1), while disallowing any provision that “waive[s] . . . rights or remedies under this chapter,” id. § 562A.11(1)( a ). Here, the lease provision merel y imposed on the tenant the duty to pay for a repair that the law authorized the parties to agree would be the tenant’s responsibility. Significantly, this is not a case where the tenant sought to perform the repair herself or himself and was denied permi ssion to do so. Rather, the lease provided that repairs would be performed by Iowa City Maintenance
unless the tenants obtained written authorization from the landlord. The tenants never sought such authorization. For these reasons, I would hold that Iow a law does not prohibit a landlord and a tenant of a single

- family residence from agreeing in the lease that the tenant will pay for the costs of repairing damage to a door resulting from third

- party vandalism when the damage occurs during the
lease term a nd is not due to the landlord’s negligence. I further note that other provisions in the IURLTA protect the tenant in other, more serious
circumstances than a vandalized door. See id. § 562A.25 (authorizing the tenant to vacate all or part of the premises and terminate the lease or receive a rent reduction when “the dwelling unit or premises are damaged or destroyed by fire or casualty to an extent that enjoyment of77 the dwelling unit is substantially impaired”); see also 49 Am. Jur. 2d
Landlord and Tenant § 704, at 679 (2006) (noting that even a general covenant to repair “merely binds the lessee to make ordinary repairs, as opposed to extensive structural repairs”). 20
III. Conclusion. I agree with the court’s resolution of the automatic carpet

- cleaning deduction, the bad

- faith penalty, and attorneys’ fees. However, in my view, attorneys’ fees are included in the $5000 maximum amount in controversy recoverable in small claims. In addition, I do not believe Iowa law forbids lease provisions requiring the tenant of a single

- family home to pay the costs of repairing door vandalism that occurs during the tenancy. If I were deciding this case, I would affirm the thorough order of the district court except I would reverse the decision on punitive damages and remand for consideration of Attorney Warnock’s fees subject to the overall $5000 jurisdictional limit. Waterman and Zager, JJ., join this concurrence in part and dissent in part.

20 A lessee of real property generally has an insurable interest in the leased property. See Neubauer v. Hostetter , 485 N.W.2d 87, 89

– 90 (Iowa 1992). In this case, the record indicates that the landlord had insurance for the premises, but cost of the door repair was below the deductible.