Opinion ID: 608191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Judgment Proceeds of $11,000

Text: 30 Entitlement to the proceeds of the underlying § 1983 judgment of $11,000 takes us from consideration of federal law to Iowa state lien law. 31 Iowa Code Ann. § 626.22 (West 1950) governs the levying of a court judgment: 32 The levy upon a judgment shall be made by entering upon the judgment docket a memorandum of such fact, giving the names of the parties plaintiff and defendant, the court from which the execution issued, and the date and hour of such entry, which shall be signed by the officer serving the execution, and a return made on the execution of [the officer's] doings in the premises. 33 The use of language shall be made and shall be signed here indicates both that § 626.22 is designed to be the exclusive means under Iowa law for levying on a judgment, and the procedures set forth therein must be completed before a valid levy may issue. 34 On February 11, 1992, the Morrises filed a Notice of Filing Lien in the district court below in which they sought a docket levy on the judgment entered against the defendants. The information contained in their notice fully complied with the statutory requirements of § 626.22. For reasons that are not clear to us, their docket levy was never entered. 35 In its order entered June 29, 1992, the district court ruled the Morrises' attempts to effectuate a lien were not perfected because they failed to provide notice to Curtis or his attorneys of an execution on February 13 they obtained and an order to garnish the federal court judgment on February 19. App. 53-54. If the reason the docket levy was never entered is because the Morrises failed to give notice, and, but for this failure, the Morrises would have had a docket levy entered before the one Eichorn and Kutmus filed, then, in our opinion, the district court erred. The district court erred because Curtis' counsel knew about the filing. Counsel for Curtis at oral argument in this appeal conceded as much. And under our reading of Iowa law, such notice suffices for purposes of effectuating a lien. See Edwards v. Tracy, 203 Iowa 1083, 212 N.W. 317, 319 (1927); see also Struebin v. State of Illinois, 383 N.W.2d 516, 518 (Iowa 1986) (interpreting Iowa's garnishment notice statute as a type of service reasonably designed to insure that the principal defendant had actual knowledge of the garnishment proceeding.). 36 Thus, in light of the actual notice Curtis' attorneys received, the Morrises have a superior right to the proceeds of the $11,000 judgment. We rule the Morrises' claim to a lien on the judgment must be honored as against the claims of attorneys Kutmus and Eichhorn. Because Kutmus and Eichhorn have already received the § 1983 judgment proceeds, they owe the Morrises $11,000 with interest. 37 Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for an entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. 38 Each party shall bear its own costs.