Opinion
No. 2-492 / 01-1536
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Peter A. Keller, Judge.
Appeal from judgment in contract suit for production and delivery of soybean crop. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Michael Zenor of Zenor Houchins, Spencer, for appellant.
Tina Hodne of Berenstein, Moore, Berenstein, Heffernan Moeller, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellee.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Harris and Snell, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
A seed company recovered in this contract suit against a farmer who undertook to produce soybeans, to be packaged and sold as seed stock for the following crop year. The farmer's appeal challenges trial court findings concerning certain terms of the contract, the damage award, and computation of interest. We affirm as modified and remand.
Many central facts are unchallenged. It is agreed that defendant Darryl R. Madsen, a South Dakota farmer, undertook to produce 18,700 bushels of soybeans for plaintiff Stine Feed Company, an Iowa corporation. It is agreed that Stine paid Madsen $123,270 for 18,700 bushels. It is even agreed that Madsen delivered only 11,646 bushels and retained 7054 bushels. The dispute concerns opposing contentions about the contract. The trial court accepted Stine's contention that the parties were bound by a written agreement, though it was signed only by Stine. Madsen contends the parties reached an oral agreement under the terms of which-forty cents per bushel premium as well as storage fees and other costs-he should recover on a counterclaim.
Trial court findings are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(a). We view the evidence in the light most consistent with the trial court's findings. Carson v. Mulnix, 263 N.W.2d 701, 705 (Iowa 1978). A written contract between the parties was mailed by Stine to Madsen. The law presumes, although Madsen denies, it was received. Montgomery Ward, Inc. v. Davis, 398 N.W.2d 869, 870-71 (Iowa 1987). The evidence supports the trial court finding that the parties operated and performed in accordance with it, and it became "the agreement/contract between the parties." We agree with the trial court's holding that Madsen became bound by the writing, notwithstanding his failure to sign it. By their conduct in ordering and paying for the beans, and in delivering a substantial part of them, the parties manifested a mutual assent to the written agreement. This was sufficient. Servivor Emp. Intern. Local #55 v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 222 N.W.2d 403, 407-08 (Iowa 1974).
Madsen challenges the damage award. After November and December 1997, when Stine paid Madsen for the soybeans, the market price declined. So the beans were of less value by the time Madsen failed to deliver them. The trial court was correct in refusing to give Madsen the benefit of the decline. Stine was entitled to be compensated in the amount it had paid Madsen.
There was no error in the trial court's rejecting of Madsen's counterclaim. There is, however, merit in Madsen's challenge to the award of interest. Prejudgment interest should have been computed as provided for contracts under Iowa Code section 535.2(1)(a). Postjudgment interest should have been allowed as provided by Iowa Code section 535.3. The trial court judgment is modified accordingly. The trial court properly awarded trial attorney fees in accordance with the written contract. Under the agreement, appellate attorney fees should also be awarded. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Woods, 480 N.W.2d 61, 70 (Iowa 1992). On remand the trial court should amend the judgment so as to award Stine $1000 toward appellate attorney fees, an award adjusted to reflect Madsen's success in challenging the interest award. Costs on appeal are taxed seventy-five percent to Madsen, twenty-five percent to Stine.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.