Title: Emmetsburg Ready Mix Co. v. Norris
Citation: 362 N.W.2d 498
Docket Number: 83-461
State: Iowa
Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 1985

362 N.W.2d 498 (1985) EMMETSBURG READY MIX CO., d/b/a Clay County Concrete, Appellant, v. G. Kennon NORRIS and Margaret M. Norris, Husband and Wife, Individually, and as Partners in 18 Norris Place, an Iowa Partnership, Appellees. No. 83-461. Supreme Court of Iowa. February 13, 1985. Donald J. Bormann of Doran &amp; Bormann, Emmetsburg, and Redge O. Berg, Spencer, for appellant. David A. Scott of Cornwall, Avery, Bjornstad &amp; Scott, Spencer, for appellees. Considered en banc. REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice. The fighting issue in this case is whether the statutory thirty days' time (following statutory notice) granted a mechanic's lienholder for bringing an action to enforce the lien can be narrowed to twenty-nine days when the courthouse is locked on the thirtieth day for a declared holiday. The operative facts are few. Plaintiff Emmetsburg Ready Mix Co. (Ready Mix) filed a mechanic's lien against real estate owned by defendants G. Kennon and Margaret M. Norris (Norris). Norris served Ready Mix with an Iowa Code section 572.28[1] demand to bring suit within thirty days. These parties agree that the thirtieth day fell on Friday, December 24, 1982. When Ready Mix went to file its action on that day it found the courthouse locked in observance of the Christmas holiday. The action thus was filed on the next business day, Monday, December 27, 1982. Norris filed a special appearance seeking dismissal of the Ready Mix petition on the ground it had not been filed within the statutory thirty-day period. Ready Mix resisted the special appearance. District court dismissed the action and Ready Mix has filed a timely appeal. We reverse and remand. I. Norris asserts a proper interpretation of three Code sections mandates the result reached by the district court. Iowa Code section 4.1 states in relevant part: Norris asserts these statutes are plain and unambiguous. Because December 24, 1982, was not an enumerated legal holiday, the Iowa Code section 572.28 thirty-day period could not be extended. Ready Mix argues such an interpretation of the statutes is strained, and leads to absurd consequences. It points to the provisions of Iowa Code sections 4.4 ("In enacting a statute, it is presumed that ... [a] just and reasonable result is intended."), and 4.6 ("If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider ... [t]he object sought to be obtained ... [and] ... [t]he consequences of a particular construction."). Iowa Code section 33.2 ("Paid holidays") sheds further light on legislative intent: It would seem more than passing strange that the general assembly would deprive a litigant of a statutory right as a result of a courthouse being closed on a day all state employees, by statutory mandate, were enjoying a paid holiday. Our decisions establish the rule that "[t]he goal in construing statutes is to ascertain legislative intent. ... The spirit of the statute must be considered as well as the words. ... A sensible, workable, practical, and logical construction should be given. ... Inconvenience or absurdity should be avoided." Hansen v. State, 298 N.W.2d 263, 265-66 (Iowa 1980). See also Brandon v. Roy, 147 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Iowa 1967); Janson v. Fulton, 162 *500 N.W.2d 438, 442-43 (Iowa 1968). The legislature has cautioned that the Code's "provisions and all proceedings under it shall be liberally construed with a view to promote its objects and assist the parties in obtaining justice." Iowa Code § 4.2. II. Pettigrove v. Parro Construction Corp., 44 Ill.App.2d 421, 194 N.E.2d 521 (1963), presents facts similar to the case before us. In Pettigrove, plaintiff's cause was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The final day for filing a motion to reinstate fell on a Saturday, when the clerk's office was closed. The following Monday was a legal holiday. Plaintiff filed her motion to reinstate on Tuesday. This motion was challenged as untimely. The Illinois statute provided for enlargement of time where the terminal day fell on Sunday or a holiday, but not Saturday. The Illinois appellate court construed the statute liberally, stating: Id. at 427, 194 N.E.2d at 524; see also Burgess v. Erickson, 72 Ill.App.2d 85, 86, 218 N.E.2d 111, 112 (1966). In Stockslager v. Daly Aluminum Products, 246 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1971), the Florida Supreme Court was persuaded, on policy grounds, to "recede from" a precedent that would have barred plaintiff from filing his mechanic's lien outside the statutory limit when the terminal day fell on a Sunday. The Florida mechanic's lien law was silent on the question. The Stockslager court found that the statute governing computations of time should be construed so as to obviate confusion and promote clarity and simplicity. Such an approach, the court wrote, had "the additional benefit of recognizing the impossibility of performing most procedural acts set up by statute on a Sunday or holiday. Accordingly, absent a clear statutory mandate dictating a different result, we decline to ascribe to the Legislature an intent to require a party to perform an impossible act." Id. at 98. We are persuaded by the rationale of these cases. We find the legislature never intended the thirty-day filing period allowed in the specific statute, Iowa Code section 572.28, to be affected by a strict construction of Iowa Code section 4.1(22). Our conviction is reinforced by the lead-in sentence in Iowa Code section 4.1, withholding the application of the enumerated rules where "such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the general assembly." To the extent that some of the language in Barlow v. Midwest Roofing Co., 249 Iowa 1358, 92 N.W.2d 406 (1958), is inconsistent with this opinion, the same is overruled. We reverse the ruling of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the action and further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. [1] Iowa Code section 572.28 provides: Upon the written demand of the owner, his agent, or contractor, served on the lienholder requiring him to commence action to enforce his lien, such action shall be commenced within thirty days thereafter, or the lien and all benefits derived therefrom shall be forfeited.