Opinion
No. 3-499 / 02-0933
Filed November 17, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pocahontas County, Ronald H. Schechtman, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from judgment on his claim for crop damage. AFFIRMED.
Warren Bush of Bush Law Office, Wall Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and David Sheridan and Michael Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Lawrence Schmitz appeals from his judgment for damages against the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. He argues the district court erred by misapplying the "discovery rule" in limiting his damages, and by rejecting an additional claim. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings . Schmitz is the co-owner of a parcel of farmland (Schmitz land) in Pocahontas County. The natural drainage of water from most of the Schmitz land is across adjoining property, previously owned by Leo Shimon (Shimon land). In the 1940s and 1950s Shimon erected dams on his property to create a small artificial marsh. Disputes arose over the effect this had on the drainage of the Schmitz land, but Shimon eventually agreed that the tile lines on the Schmitz land could be connected to a ten-inch tile that emptied directly into the marsh.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) purchased the Shimon land in 1985 to maintain as wetlands. The DNR determined that a new water control system was needed for the marsh, but was concerned about how the new system would affect the drainage of the Schmitz land. Schmitz and the DNR ultimately agreed that an independent fourteen-inch tile drainage system would be constructed on the Shimon land that circumvented the marsh and drained directly into an open drainage ditch on the north end of the Shimon land. The parties agreed the Schmitz tile would be hooked up to the new system. The DNR would bear the expense associated with a twelve-inch tile system, and Schmitz would pay the difference in cost between a twelve-inch and fourteen-inch system.
The new drainage system was installed in 1989, and Schmitz soon began to complain of drainage problems. Despite investigation, no obstructions were discovered until 1993, when water backing out of an intake for the drainage system led to the discovery that some of the tile was blocked by tree roots. Although the DNR removed the roots and repaired the system, Schmitz continued to complain of drainage problems.
Although Schmitz had standing water in his fields in 1993, he was not the only one. The record reveals 1993 was an extraordinarily wet year. Pocahontas County was declared a disaster area and qualified for special relief.
Schmitz's complaints ultimately came before an administrative law judge in a contested case concerning the issuance of a permit for part of the DNR's water control system. After hearing expert testimony, the judge concluded the new fourteen-inch tile provided much better drainage than the old ten-inch tile, and issuance of the permit was affirmed.
In 1999 water once again began backing out of the intake area, and excavations revealed that parts of the drainage system were once again blocked by tree roots. Schmitz filed suit against the DNR seeking both money damages and injunctive relief in the form of removal of the DNR's water control structure from the marsh. The damages claim was dismissed after the DNR sought summary judgment based on Schmitz's failure to file a tort claim. Schmitz's claim for injunctive relief was denied, as it was determined he had an adequate remedy at law. See Schmitz v. Iowa Dep't of Natural Resources, No. 01-0436 (Iowa Ct.App. May 31, 2002).
On October 23, 2000, Schmitz filed a tort claim with the state appeal board for $54,786.93, representing damage to his crops from 1994 to 2000. When the board did not make final disposition within six months, Schmitz withdrew the claim and filed a petition with the district court. Following a bench trial the district court determined the DNR had negligently caused some of Schmitz's crop damage. The court concluded the DNR was put on notice of the tree root problem in 1993, and its failure to thereafter secure the remaining system led to the 1999 tree root blockage, which proximately caused damage to Schmitz's 1999 crops and 2000 seeding. The court limited Schmitz's damages to those incurred after October 23, 1998. It determined that Iowa Code section 669.13 (1999) barred any damages accruing more than two years before October 23, 2000, when Schmitz's tort claim was filed with the state appeal board.
Schmitz then filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). He asked the court to address his claim that in 1989, when the new system was constructed, the DNR negligently failed to hook up certain of his tile outlets to the new system. The district court denied the motion. Noting it was not convinced of the existence of these supposedly unconnected outlets, the court concluded that Schmitz had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between any unconnected outlets and his damages. Schmitz appeals.
Scope and Standard of Review . Because this is an appeal from a bench trial in a law action, review is on error. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. The judge's findings of fact are binding if supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 6.14(6)( a). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment, and the court's findings are liberally construed to uphold, rather than defeat, its decision. Claus v. Whyle, 526 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Iowa 1994).
Discovery Rule . Schmitz's damages claim was brought under Iowa Code chapter 669, the Iowa Tort Claims Act. See Iowa Code § 669.2(3)(a). A claim under chapter 669 is barred unless it is filed with the state appeal board within two years of when it accrued. Id. at § 669.13. Thus, unless Schmitz can prove an exception to the statute, he is barred from seeking damages for negligence occurring before October 23, 1998. See Callahan v. State, 464 N.W.2d 268, 273 (Iowa 1990). The discovery rule is such an exception, and provides that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of both the fact of the injury and its cause. Id.
Here, photographs entered into evidence by Schmitz, when taken together with his testimony, provide not only substantial but unrefuted evidence that Schmitz was aware of the damage that occurred to his crops between 1994 and 1998. Schmitz also testified to his early-formed and continuing opinion that the drainage problem was not due to his own tile, but was caused by the tile system installed by the DNR. There were two places in the system where the flow of water could be observed without the need to excavate DNR land, and thus verify if a problem were occurring. It was in fact observation of these areas that led to discovery of the tree root problems in 1993 and 1999.
The statute of limitations began to run once Schmitz knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of facts sufficient to trigger an awareness that he had a cause of action against the DNR. See Vachon v. State, 514 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Iowa 1994). While Schmitz may not have been aware of precisely why the new tile was not draining properly, it was not necessary that he know of the specific negligence committed by the DNR, or the details of the evidence by which he would prove his claim. Id. As noted by the district court, Schmitz not only knew of his alleged damage, but he knew enough to identify DNR as the tortfeasor and the culprit for all the crop damage sustained by him. It was surely sufficient to place him on inquiry notice and to charge him with knowledge of sufficient facts to trigger an awareness of a cause of action against the DNR. This was not a latent injury.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Schmitz was on notice as to both his injury and its cause at all relevant times prior to October 23, 1998. Thus, limitation of his damages was appropriate.
Unconnected Tile Outlets . In addition to the problems created by the fourteen-inch tile line, Schmitz claims that additional damage was caused by the DNR's failure, in 1989, to hook up some of his existing tile lines to the new fourteen-inch tile. He contends he did not discover this alleged failure until October 2000, when a video was made of the new tile system. The burden to establish this claim by a preponderance of the evidence lay with Schmitz. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( e), ( f).
Evidence of these allegedly unconnected lines consisted of testimony from Schmitz, and an aerial photograph by the United States Department of Agriculture, with hand-drawn notations by Schmitz to represent the tile lines. Schmitz testified that he thought he had drawn the lines on the photograph before the fourteen-inch tile was installed in 1989, but admitted he had not seen a tile map of his farm until 1991 or 1992. He also testified that he knew the location of these allegedly unconnected lines because they had been dug up and replaced in the mid-nineties, but that he was nevertheless unaware the lines had not been hooked up to the new system until he viewed the October 2000 tape.
The evidence on this particular claim is sparse, and dependant on testimony from Schmitz. However, the district court's post-trial ruling makes it is clear that it did not find Schmitz credible in regard to this specific claim. Making such a credibility assessment is the prerogative of the district court, and not a matter for this court on appeal. See Tim O'Neill Chevrolet, Inc. v. Forristall, 551 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 1996). Upon review, and in light of the foregoing credibility assessment, we conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Schmitz failed to meet his burden of proof on this claim.