Opinion ID: 2182337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Uniform Commercial Code Argument.

Text: Poula and his client claim that Poula is entitled to a possessory lien under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, we believe that Iowa Code section 554.9104(c) (1987) specifically answers that argument. It provides: This Article does not apply . . . . c. to a lien given by statute or other rule of law for services or materials except as provided in section 554.9310 [which is inapplicable here] on priority of such liens. . . . The comment to this section in the Iowa Code Annotated states: 3. In all jurisdictions liens are given suppliers of many types of services and materials either by statute or by common law. It was thought to be both inappropriate and unnecessary for this Article to attempt a general codification of that lien structure which is in considerable part determined by local conditions and which is far removed from ordinary commercial financing. Paragraph (c) therefore excludes such liens from the Article. Section 9-310 states a rule for determining priorities between such liens and the consensual security interests covered by this Article. We believe the court properly rejected both the attorney's lien argument and the argument under the Uniform Commercial Code. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.