Opinion ID: 2037340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory provisions concerning a city's remedy against property owners for nuisance abatement costs.

Text: Section 364.12(3)( a ) gives a city authority to abate a nuisance, public or private, in any reasonable manner. The city contends that it had authority under Iowa Code section 364.12(4) to pursue a civil action against defendants to recover costs the city incurred in abating the nuisance on defendants' property. Section 364.12(4) provides in part: In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a city may also seek reimbursement for costs incurred in performing any act authorized by this section by a civil action for damages against a property owner.... For the purposes of this subsection, a county acquiring property for delinquent taxes shall not be considered a property owner. (Emphasis added.) In district court, defendants contended, however, that section 446.20(2) was the city's only remedy for pursuing reimbursement for abatement costs. That section provides in part: If the [county] board [of supervisors] or [city] council determines that any property located on a parcel purchased by the county or city pursuant to section 446.19 requires removal, dismantling, or demolition, the board or council shall, at the same time and in the same manner that the notice of expiration of right of redemption is served, cause to be served on the person in possession of the parcel and also upon the person in whose name the parcel is taxed a separate notice stating that if the parcel is not redeemed within the time period specified in the notice of expiration of right of redemption, the property described in the notice shall be removed, dismantled, or demolished. The notice shall further state that the costs of removal, dismantling, or demolition shall be assessed against the person in whose name the parcel is taxed and a lien for the costs shall be placed against any other parcel taxed in that person's name within the county. Iowa Code § 446.20(2) (emphasis added). Defendants argued that the city's action against them to recover abatement costs was barred because the city failed to give them the proper notice required by section 446.20(2).