Opinion
No. 1-1024 / 01-0281.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, STEPHEN C. CLARKE, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's decision denying their claim for treble damages for injury to trees. AFFIRMED.
Robert Rausch of Rausch Law Firm, Waterloo, for appellants.
Merle Schilling, Dunkerton, pro se.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's decision denying their claim for treble damages for injury to trees. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
Plaintiffs, Marion and Lenora Witzenburg, are the owners of Woodland Estates, a mobile home sub-division located near Dunkerton, Iowa. They developed Woodland Estates during the early 1970s. In 1984, the defendants, Merle and Debra Schilling, purchased Lots 19 and 20 in Woodland Estates. They also purchased a mobile home that was sitting on what they believed to be Lot 20. The Schillings used the mobile home as their family dwelling.
In October of 1997, the Schillings purchased a new mobile home. They removed their old home and placed their new mobile home on the lot where their old one had been located. During the moving process, the defendants acknowledge they cut down four trees to facilitate the positioning of their new mobile home.
In June 1999, the Witzenburgs sued the Schillings in a three-count petition. Count I was a claim for treble damages alleging willful destruction of plaintiffs' trees; Count II was an action on an open account to recover a delinquent bill for water services; and Count III was a prayer for injunctive relief based on allegations of trespass.
Following a bench trial, the district court denied plaintiffs' claim for damages in Count I, entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Count II, and denied their prayer for injunctive relief in Count III. The Witzenburgs appeal from the district court's decision denying their claim for damages to trees under Count I. Counts II and III have not been made part of this appeal. The Witzenburgs contend the district court erred in failing to enter judgment in their favor for treble damages pursuant to Iowa Code section 658.4 (1999) based on the evidence they presented at trial.
II. Standard of Review .
Our scope of review in this case tried at law is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Drew v. Lionberger, 508 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). The district court's findings of fact have the effect of a jury verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Voeltz, 431 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 1988); Drew, 508 N.W.2d at 85. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept the evidence as adequate to reach the same findings. Drew, 508 N.W.2d at 85.
Formerly known as Iowa R. App. P. 4.
III. Discussion .
The plaintiffs' suit for damages for injury to their trees is premised on Iowa Code section 658.4. This section provides:
For willfully injuring any timber, tree, or shrub on the land of another, or in the street or highway in front of another's cultivated ground, yard, or city lot, or on the public grounds of any city, or any land held by the State for any purpose whatsoever, the perpetrator shall pay treble damages at the suit of any person entitled to protect or enjoy the property.
In order to recover damages, the plaintiffs must prove the defendants acted intentionally and deliberately without regard to the rights of others. Bangert v. Osceola County, 456 N.W.2d 183, 188 (Iowa 1990); Cozad v. Strack, 254 Iowa 734, 742, 119 N.W.2d 266, 271 (1963). Questions of intent, purpose, and motive are for the fact-finder. Bangert, 456 N.W.2d at 189; Cozad, 254 Iowa at 742, 119 N.W.2d at 272.
The evidence presented at trial confirms that the four trees cut down by the defendants were located just southwest of Lot 20 on land owned by the plaintiffs. However, the district court found the Schillings' removal of the Witzenburgs' trees was not willful within the meaning of section 658.4. The trial court found that between 1984 and 1997, the defendants utilized the area south and west of platted Lots 19 and 20 as part of their yard. The court found the Schillings regularly cut brush and overgrown trees and had a burning pit in the area. The court also noted that an LP tank that served the Schillings' property before and after they purchased Lots 19 and 20 actually sits south and west of Lot 19. The court further found the defendants' use of the land where the trees were located was not challenged by the Witzenburgs until 1997 when the Schillings' new trailer was placed on Lot 20. The district court also concluded the defendants did not have the benefit of a "formal survey and exercised control over what they believed was their land." The court summarized its findings in the following manner:
. . . [t]he court cannot ignore the defenses raised as further evidence that the acts of the defendants in removal of the trees in question was not willful within the meaning of Chapter 658. The defendants were certainly not laying waste to the trees in question. They were rather making room for their new trailer. They believed that they had a continuing right to do what they had done for the previous thirteen years in clearing trees and brush for their convenience. The court therefore concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to establish by preponderance of the evidence that they should be granted relief under Iowa Chapter 658.
We acknowledge the evidence presented at trial was conflicting. The Witzenburgs offered evidence to the district court which they believe supports a finding that the defendants intentionally and deliberately cut their trees without regard for the Witzenburgs' rights. The district court obviously weighed the conflicting evidence and accepted the evidence it found more believable. Under our standard of review, we are prohibited from weighing the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 431 N.W.2d at 785. As noted earlier, the district court's findings have the effect of a jury verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.