Opinion
No. 3-210 / 02-0752.
Filed May 29, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, RICHARD J. VIPOND, Judge.
The guardian appeals a district court dismissal of her petition to set aside a farm lease. AFFIRMED.
Thomas R. Eller of Eller, Brink Sextro, Denison, for appellant.
Reed H. Reitz of Reimer, Lohman Reitz, Denison, for appellee.
Heard by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
FarmerRoman Goeser entered into a twenty-year farm lease with his relative Steve Ulmer. On discovering its existence, Goeser's daughter, Linda Peffer, sued to set aside the lease. The district court dismissed the petition following trial.
On appeal, Peffer claims: 1) her father lacked the capacity to enter into the lease, 2) the lease was unconscionable, and 3) the lease was acquired by undue influence. She also challenges the district court's refusal to admit expert testimony on "operative legal issues."
With respect to the capacity issue, the district court stated:
In this case Ms. Peffer's allegation of mental incompetence is supported only by the perception of several people that Mr. Goeser's physical and mental functioning slowed somewhat during the years prior to the execution of the lease. The court has no reason to believe that that perception is inaccurate. An overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, however, shows that Mr. Goeser had the mental capacity to make a lease.
On the unconscionability issue, the court stated:
Mr. Goeser was fully aware of the critical lease provisions. He knew that he was giving Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer a very favorable lease and that the lease affected the salability of the land in ways that benefited Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer. The long-term lease was his idea, and he was not in any way surprised by its provisions. He assented to the specific aspects of the lease which are now claimed to be unconscionable.
There was a big disparity in power between Mr. Goeser and Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer. It was Mr. Goeser, however, who had all the power. Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer needed to rent the land. They were not in a position to force Mr. Goeser to do anything. Mr. Goeser could have rented the land to someone else. There were other potential tenants who probably would have paid more rent. . . .
Mr. Ulmer had rented Mr. Goeser's land under oral leases for many years. There had never been any problems. Neither party sought a written lease in order to avoid misunderstanding or disagreement. The lease was executed for an entirely different purpose.
Mr. Goeser executed the lease for the purpose of conferring a benefit on Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer. He knew what he was doing, and he had a right to do it. As the owner of the land, he was entitled to dispose of it by deed or lease as he wished. He had no obligation to require a higher rent, a shorter lease or a rent adjustment provision.
On the undue influence issue, the court stated:
The nature of the lease transaction does not in itself show undue influence. The lease was not even Mr. Ulmer's idea. Mr. Ulmer wanted to buy the land on contract. Mr. Goeser rejected that request and suggested a long-term lease as an alternative.
The lease clearly conferred a substantial benefit on Mr. and Mrs. Ulmer. That fact, however, does not show that the lease resulted from undue influence. Mr. Goeser liked Mr. Ulmer. People tend to do good things for people whom they like. An act resulting from affection is not the same as an act resulting from undue influence.
The lease was consistent with the relationship which had existed between Mr. Goeser and Mr. Ulmer for many years. Mr. Goeser had conferred many benefits on Mr. Ulmer. Mr. Ulmer could not have begun farming without Mr. Goeser's help. Mr. Goeser sold his machinery to Mr. Ulmer at a reduced price. He gave Mr. Ulmer $5,000 and co-signed a promissory note to help Mr. Ulmer buy a farm. He leased his land to Mr. Ulmer at a rate which was less than the fair rental value. All of those benefits were conferred at times when Mr. Goeser was undisputably of full mental capacity and not subject to undue influence.
Ms. Peffer has not proven that the lease resulted from undue influence. The evidence shows that the execution of the lease was a free, intelligent and voluntary act on the part of Mr. Goeser.
After thoroughly analyzing each of these issues, the district court stated,
Mr. Goeser was 75 years of age at the time when he signed the lease. He was not a young person, but he was of sound mind and he knew what he wanted to do. To override his desires by judicial decree would be no more defensible than to do so by coercion or undue influence.
On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court's analysis and assessment. We also find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to exclude expert legal testimony.