Opinion
No. 5-968 / 05-0747
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John Bauercamper, Judge.
United Cooperative Association appeals from the district court's judgment against the defendant. AFFIRMED.
Roger Sutton of Sutton Troge Law Office, Charles City, for appellant.
Dale Putnam, Decorah, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
United Cooperative Association (United) appeals from what it claims is an inadequate district court judgment against Todd Kaeser, following a bench trial. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
United is an Iowa agricultural cooperative that provided Kaeser with supplies necessary for his farming operation on an open account. The period in dispute is from April 1994 through October 2001. United filed suit against Kaeser to recover a past due balance in July 2002 seeking $31,507.08 plus eighteen percent interest from the date of filing, attorney's fees and court costs. In December 2002, Kaeser filed an amended answer denying United's claim and asserted a counterclaim, as well as affirmative defenses regarding United's interest-charging practices and the running of the statute of limitations. There were disputes both during discovery and during trial as to records and accountings. The district court admitted all exhibits offered by the parties at the January 2005 bench trial, including approximately 200 pages of invoices and accountings. United admitted at trial that it erroneously failed to credit Kaeser's account a total of $4853.70 in missing entries for 1996 and 1998 and made a double monthly finance charge in March 2000. United also conceded that these errors would affect the balance due on the account because of its use of compounding interest, but United failed to submit to the district court any recalculated accounting to correct for these errors. The district court found that United failed to carry its burden of proof with regard to the interest charges and denied judgment on the sum of all United's finance charges against Kaeser from the account statements, totaling $23,086.66. From the remaining $8420.42, the district court subtracted the $4853.70 in credits and the initial April 1994 balance forward of $1972.02 for United's failure to provide prior statements supporting the April 1994 balance forward was owed. It then entered judgment against Kaeser of $1594.70. United appeals.
The counterclaim was later withdrawn and dismissed by Kaeser.
United claimed it could not produce records predating 1998, yet did produce records just prior to trial dating back to April 1994. In response, Kaeser produced records at trial, objected to by United, but admitted by the district court.
United also argues that the district court erred by not granting its motion for advance ruling on certain evidence prior to trial. However, as the record demonstrates, United withdrew its motion before the start of trial. We conclude that United failed to preserve this issue for appeal and do not reach the merits of the motion for advance ruling. See McCracken v. Edward D. Jones Co., 445 N.W.2d 375, 378-79 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989) (stating under the doctrine of invited error, it is elementary a litigant cannot complain of error which he has invited or to which he has assented). Likewise, United waives any additional issue regarding the admissibility of exhibits for failing to set forth the issue in a separate argument. See Iowa R. App. R. 6.14.
United argues on appeal that the district court's ruling reducing their damages to $1594.70 was erroneous as not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Our scope of review in this action is for the correction of errors at law, and the findings of fact are binding upon us if they are supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, 6.14(6)( a). Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Frontier Props. Corp. v. Swanberg, 488 N.W.2d 146, 147 (Iowa 1992). Under this standard, 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).
United complains that the district court failed to properly calculate the debt verses interest charges:
The district court judge failed to articulate his underlying reasoning and failed to set forth the court's assurances that plaintiff's contentions were considered and why they were not adopted. There is no way that the appellate court can reasonably ascertain the district court reasoning within the confines to the court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree.
Nonetheless, the plaintiff failed to seek a post trial motion which would have drawn the court's attention to the specific findings now asserted on appeal as flawed or incomplete. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2). At trial, United had "the burden of proving the account, including that the prices charged were fair and reasonable." McIntire v. Muller, 522 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Team Central, Inc. v. Teamco, Inc., 271 N.W.2d 914, 920 (Iowa 1978)). In establishing the existence of the account, the burden is to prove more than something is owed, but rather precisely how much. Id. As admitted by United in its appeal brief, the debt owed by Kaeser in this case was "reasonably certain although somewhat difficult to ascertain."
The district court heard all the evidence and sorted through the many exhibits, concluding United simply had not carried its burden of proof to allow for a judgment other than that rendered. When the trial court in a law action tried to the court denies recovery because of a party's failure to carry that party's burden of proof, we will not interfere on appeal unless we find the party met that burden as a matter of law. Roland A. Wilson Assocs. v. Forty-O-Four Grand Corp., 246 N.W.2d 922, 925 (Iowa 1976). We cannot say that United carried its burden of proof as a matter of law due to its failure to consider its accounting entry errors, which resulted in compounded interest on amounts admittedly not owed. Given the state of the record before the district court, and now before us on appeal, we affirm the district court's ruling.