Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-619 / 09-1505 Filed November 24, 2010 THE SWIFT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOHN J. SHEFFEY and T.N.T. SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.

The Swift, Inc. appeals from the district court order denying its petition in replevin. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Amanda M. Richards of Betty, Neuman & McMahon, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant. John Sheffey, Davenport, appellee pro se.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.

2

TABOR, J. A gospel music group from Tennessee known as The Swift, Inc., asks us to reverse the district court's denial of its replevin action seeking to regain possession of its customized touring van. The group's van broke down in the Quad Cities en route to a concert in Lakota, Iowa. The Swift seeks return of the van from John Sheffey,1 a Davenport mechanic who dismantled its engine. The Swift contends the court erred in concluding it was not entitled to replevin because Sheffey possessed a valid artisan's lien. We conclude the district court erred in requiring The Swift to disprove the existence of a valid artisan's lien. Applying the correct burden of proof, Sheffey failed to show he possessed a valid artisan's lien on the vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Michael Simons teamed up with other musicians to form The Swift, a gospel music group that traveled the country performing for young people at churches and conferences. To that end, The Swift purchased a 2005 Ford E540 truck for $55,000 and spent between $14,000 and $15,000 customizing it with bunk beds and couches. While traveling through the Quad Cities on March 31, 2007, the group noticed its vehicle was having mechanical difficulties. The Swift stopped at Sergeant Peppers, a repair shop in Davenport and received a referral to Sheffey, who reportedly worked on larger vehicles. When Sheffey inspected The Swift's vehicle, it began leaking water. Sheffey speculated the problem was related to the water pump and took the
1

Sheffey owns and operates an automotive repair business known as T.N.T. Services. We will refer to these named defendants collectively as Sheffey.

3

vehicle to his shop to replace the pump. The Swift left the vehicle with Sheffey and travelled to its next show in Lakota. The following day, Sheffey called The Swift to inform the group he had discovered the radiator hose had blown off the water pump, that it was "an easy fix," and that the vehicle would be ready when the group returned to Davenport. replaced the serpentine belts. As The Swift was making its return trip to Davenport, Sheffey phoned to inform the group his repair had not fixed the vehicle's problem. He told the group there was something internally wrong with the vehicle, but he did not know what the problem was. The Swift returned to Nashville and told Sheffey to deliver word as soon as he knew what was wrong with the vehicle. During the course of the next month, Simons called Sheffey to check on his progress in diagnosing and repairing the vehicle. In various conversations, Sheffey informed Simons that he was awaiting schematics from Ford, had removed the engine from the vehicle, and was awaiting the arrival of parts he had ordered. Simons claims Sheffey was unable to state what was wrong with the vehicle or what needed to be done to repair it. On April 30, 2007, Sheffey faxed Simons twenty-four pages of instructions on how to repair what he believed to be the problem. Sheffey claims he sent the document at the group's behest in response to a question by one of the members as to what parts had been ordered. Sheffey also sent two invoices billing the group for the repairs: the first was the bill for the initial repair of the radiator hose and the serpentine belts for $1259.32, and the second was a bill for the work Sheffey clamped the radiator hose and

4

Sheffey had performed to that point in removing the vehicle's engine for $6667.13, which included forty-five hours worth of labor charges and $2500 for parts. The parts were not itemized and Sheffey claims the exact cost was slightly more than $2500, but that he rounded down. The Swift contacted Reynolds Ford to reassemble the engine, but when a mechanic arrived at Sheffey's to retrieve the vehicle and engine, Sheffey stated he needed payment for his services before he would release the vehicle. On December 17, 2007, The Swift made a written demand for return of the vehicle. On July 15, 2008, The Swift filed a petition in replevin against Sheffey seeking return of the vehicle and $21,658.16 for loss of use of the property. On August 5, 2008, Sheffey answered, alleging the existence of a valid mechanic's lien on the vehicle. Sheffey also filed a cross-petition, seeking

damages for diagnostics, parts, repairs, and storage fees. Sheffey dismissed his cross-petition after The Swift pointed out that a counterclaim is prohibited in a replevin action. See Iowa Code

Download THE SWIFT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOHN J. SHEFFEY and T.N.T. SERVICES, D

Iowa Law