 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JARNAGIN v. FISHER CONTROLS INTERN.12/24/1997
e property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs."
Citing Krull, the district court concluded that the regulators enhanced the home's value, that there was a financial expenditure for the improvement, and that the improvement made the home more useful. We agree.
To be an improvement a product must be either a "permanent addition to or a betterment of real property that enhances its capital value. . . ." Id. (emphasis added). Permanence is not, as Jarnagin urges, an absolute requirement of an improvement but one of two alternative requirements. Nor, as Jarnagin contends, must the owner have the intent to make an improvement permanent for it to be considered permanent. See Tallman v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 558 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1997) (intent is an unreliable touchstone for determining whether the material is an improvement). Even though there is no absolute requirement that a product be a permanent addition to the real property, here we find the regulators were such a permanent addition. See id.; see, e.g., Patel v. Fleur de Lis Motor Inns, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 961, 965 (S.D.Iowa 1991) (soap dish was improvement under Iowa statute even where installation was not regarded as permanent); Cyrus v. Henes, 89 Ohio App.3d 172, 623 N.E.2d 1256, 1258 (1993), rev'd on other grounds, 70 Ohio St.3d 640, 640 N.E.2d 810 (1994) (permanence does not imply that the addition will never be removed or replaced).
The alternative to the requirement that a product be a permanent addition to the real property is that it is a betterment of real property that enhances its capital value. Despite the affidavit of Jarnagin's appraiser, Edward Knape, who stated that the regulators did not enhance the value of the real estate , we find, as the district court did, that the regulators did enhance the home's value. See Krull, 522 N.W.2d at 612 ("as a part of the furnace, the control valve was a betterment of the Krull home"). The regulators, part of a properly working furnace, increased [573 NW2d Page 37]
the home's value by making it more comfortably inhabitable in cold temperatures.
Further, we believe the district court correctly found, and Jarnagin does not contest, that the regulators met the remaining criteria for an improvement — that they involved the expenditure of labor or money and were designed to make the property more useful or more valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs. Id. at 611. Here, the regulators were clearly designed to make the property more useful and valuable by providing regulation of gas pressure to the home's furnace and appliances.
Finally, we reject Jarnagin's attempt to distinguish the regulators from the definition of improvement on the basis that they are located outside the home. The definition of an improvement adopted in Krull refers to improvements to "real property." Id. Real property is defined as " and, and generally whatever is erected or growing upon or affixed to the land." Black's Law Dictionary 1218 (6th ed. 1990). In this case, the regulators enhanced the value of the home which was erected on the land; therefore, it is not significant that the regulators were physically located outside of the home.
III. Summary.
The district court properly found the regulators at issue were improvements pursuant to section 614.1(11) and, therefore, that Jarnagin's action against Fisher was time-barred. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
|