Opinion
No. 3-402 / 02-1480
Filed August 27, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, George L. Stigler, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. AFFIRMED.
Gary McClintock of Hoeger McClintock, Independence, for appellant.
Sarah Rothman of Lounsberry Law Office, Independence, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Defendant H. Ray Hulse appeals from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Donald and Helen Hertzberg on their claim for unpaid rent and damages for debris left on their property. He contends substantial evidence does not support the district court's finding he owed the Hertzbergs unpaid rent because the parties orally modified the lease. He also contends the court erred in awarding double damages pursuant to Iowa Code section 562.2 (2001), and in awarding treble damages pursuant to section 658.1A. We review the district court's decision for errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.
Where the trial court sits as the fact finder, its findings have the effect of a jury verdict and bind us if they are supported by substantial evidence. Bazal v. Rhines, 600 N.W.2d 327, 329 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Id. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the district court's judgment. Benson v. Webster, 593 N.W.2d 126, 129 (Iowa 1999).
The Hertzbergs claim they rented their farmland to Hulse at a fixed rate of $4000 per year, payable in two installments. Hulse contends he rented the land with the understanding there were fifty tillable acres. He interpreted this to mean the rent was $80 per acre. Upon learning there were only thirty-eight tillable acres, Hulse claims he confronted Mr. Hertzberg who told him he would "make it right at thirty-eight." Hulse believed Hertzberg was thereby modifying the lease to $80 per acre for the thirty-eight acres for a total of $3040 per year. At the time, Hulse was in the second year of the lease. He had paid $4000 for the farmland in 1999, and $2000 for the first installment of 2000. Because of the modification, he concluded he did not owe the Hertzbergs any additional rent. The Hertzbergs deny any modification of the lease agreement.
When evidence is in conflict, we entrust the weighing of testimony and decisions about the credibility of witnesses to the trier of fact. See Seastrom v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 601 N.W.2d 339, 346 (Iowa 1999). The trial court accepted the testimony at trial supporting the Hertzbergs' claim they had always leased the land at a flat rate of $4000 pet year, not by the acre. The sole evidence of the lease terms was the testimony of Mr. Hertzberg and Hulse, and the trial court chose to believe Hertzberg when he testified there was no oral modification of the lease terms. Substantial evidence supports its conclusions. The district court did not err in awarding the Hertzbergs $2000 in damages for Hulse's unpaid rent for the year 2000.
The district court additionally found Hulse did not vacate the leased property until April 20, 2001. Because his lease expired on March 1, 2001, the court concluded Hulse owed the Hertzbergs two months worth of rent in the amount of $333.34 per month. The district court then doubled the amount of these damages pursuant to section 562.2 for a total of $1333.34. Hulse appeals, contending the district court erred in failing to make findings that his holdover was "willful" as required by section 562.2. Hulse did not bring this error to the district court's attention by filing a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). When no motion to enlarge or amend is made, we assume as fact an unstated finding that is necessary to support the judgment. Brichacek v. Hiskey, 401 N.W.2d 44, 46 (Iowa 1987).
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Hulse willfully held over. The term "willfully" has been held to mean, intentionally, deliberately, with bad or evil purpose, contrary to known duty. Nelson v. Deering Implement Co., 241 Iowa 1248, 1256-57, 42 N.W.2d 522, 527 (Iowa 1950). In September 2000, Hulse was given notice his lease would not be renewed. He did not vacate the land until served with eviction proceedings. His claim of delay caused by weather fails because he had from the prior September to remove his property. Because he stayed on the land contrary to a known duty, we affirm the district court's order awarding the Hertzbergs $1333.34 in holdover damages.
Finally, the district court concluded the Hertzbergs were required to repair damages Hulse caused to their property. The court found the amount of damages to be $1215, and trebled these damages pursuant to section 658.1A for a total of $3645. Hulse contends the district court erred in applying section 658.1A because it failed to make a finding that Hulse had caused unreasonable injury to the Hertzbergs. Again, Hulse failed to argue this deficiency to the district court in a rule 1.904(2) motion.
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support a finding Hulse caused unreasonable injury to the Hertzbergs. The evidence indicates the land was left in a condition that rendered it unable to be farmed. The tenant renting the Hertzbergs land after Hulse was required to rectify the damage. That tenant charged the Hertzbergs $1215 for the expense of removing waste. The district court did not err in awarding $3645 in repair damages.
We affirm the district court's order entering judgment in favor of the Hertzbergs for total damages in the amount of $6686.67.