Opinion ID: 2131551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was there a valid election of remedies defense?

Text: Defendant asserts Stroh's prior lawsuit resulting in the uncollectible judgment was an election of remedies precluding the present action to foreclose the lien. The doctrine of election of remedies, while recognized by most courts, is not favored. Ordinarily it is applied in a strict and limited way. See 25 Am.Jur.2d Election of Remedies § 3, at 648-649 (1966). This court has said the doctrine is not intended either as a trap or as a penalty for a mere mistake. Sackett v. Farmers State Bank, 209 Iowa 487, 493, 228 N.W. 51, 54 (1929). When the doctrine of election of remedies is applied, three elements are present: (a) existence of two or more remedies, (b) inconsistency between the remedies, and (c) a choice of one of the remedies. 25 Am.Jur.2d Election of Remedies § 8, at 652 (1966). The first and third elements are clearly present here. Stroh could sue Hudson on contract for failure to pay, or it could enforce the mechanic's lien against the property and improvements. Stroh first chose to sue at law for the amount owed on the contract. We must then determine whether the second element exists in this case. This element requires a basic inconsistency between the available remedies in order to bar the second action. Allied Concord Financial Corp. v. Hawkeye Lumber Co., 172 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Iowa 1969); Culligan Soft Water Service v. Berglund, 259 Iowa 660, 666, 145 N.W.2d 604, 608 (1966); Murray v. McDonald, 203 Iowa 418, 420, 212 N.W. 711, 712 (1927); 25 Am.Jur.2d Election of Remedies § 10, at 653 (1966). Here the second action was based on the mechanic's lien. There was no need to deny existence of the contract sued on in the first litigation. In fact, it was necessary for Stroh to show a contractual chain from it to Hudson (general contractor) to Commercial Investment (lessee) to Iowa Realty (owner-lessor). In both actions Stroh was required to prove a contractual relationship between it and Hudson. The remedies here were cumulative and consistent, not inconsistent. Support for this holding is found in Miller v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 251 Iowa 665, 675, 102 N.W.2d 368, 375 (1960); Southern Surety Co. v. York Tire Service, 209 Iowa 104, 106-107, 227 N.W. 606, 607 (1929); 53 Am. Jur.2d Mechanics' Liens § 304, at 864-865 (1970); 57 C.J.S. Mechanics' Liens § 225, at 798 (1948). Because the second element required for imposition of the election of remedies doctrine is lacking, it cannot be imposed as a defense in this case. We therefore affirm the decree entered below. AFFIRMED.