Dopheide v. Schoeppner

• Decision Date: 10 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 53032,53032
• Citation: 163 N.W.2d 360
• Parties: Duane DOPHEIDE, Appellee, v. Albert SCHOEPPNER, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 360

163 N.W.2d 360

Duane DOPHEIDE, Appellee, v. Albert SCHOEPPNER, Appellant.

No. 53032.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 10, 1968.

Wunschel & Schechtmen, Carroll, for appellee.

LeGRAND, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action for damages following defendant's alleged breach of an oral farm lease. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict of $2900.00 for plaintiff, which was reduced to $2100.00 by the trial court as a condition for overruling defendant's motion for new trial.

This remittitur was accepted by plaintiff and is not an issue here. We therefore disregard it in our consideration of the case.

Although defendant charges numerous errors as grounds for a new trial, we find his principal complaints fall into three categories:

(1) That there was no evidence of any oral lease sufficient to submit to the jury and that the evidence showed plaintiff was a mere cropper as a matter of law;

(2) That the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of a separate oral lease for 1966 when plaintiff neither plead nor proved such lease;

(3) That the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to the measure of damages.

For reasons set out in Division II we hold defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The evidence in this case was confined to the testimony of plaintiff and defendant. We summarize it in its form most favorable to plaintiff:

Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. For a number of years plaintiff helped defendant doing odd jobs after school. In 1964 plaintiff had a conversation with defendant about the operation of his farm. This conversation took place around the first of July after defendant's son had died. Defendant then needed more outside help and told plaintiff that, if he helped him out that year (1964), he 'would get the farm for the following year.' There were other conversations concerning the terms under which plaintiff was to work the farm. Rent was to be principally on a crop basis: half the corn; half the beans and two-fifths of the oats. The pasture and hay ground were to be cash rent--$10.00 per acre. Defendant laid out a plan as to how the fields should be planted.

Later plaintiff was called into military service. He talked to defendant about this. Defendant said he would get a hired hand while plaintiff was gone and plaintiff could take over when he returned. This became unnecessary because plaintiff got an early medical discharge and returned in time for the entire crop year.

Plaintiff, with some help from his father, did all of the farm work for 1965 with the exception of some corn planting by defendant. That was principally because defendant raised seed corn, which required special attention and with which plaintiff was unfamiliar.

Plaintiff did the cultivating and all the rest of the work with the crops. When the crops were harvested, plaintiff took them to town, had them weighed and made the division between himself and defendant. He also picked the corn and divided it according to the agreement. Defendant got half the corn. Plaintiff also combined the soybeans and then delivered them to the elevator. Defendant got half the soybeans. Plaintiff used his father's machinery in 1965 and during that year he bought a tractor, corn planter, cultivator, rotary hoe and wagon and grinder-mixer, apparently for use in 1966. After the 1965 crops were harvested (sometime in November), plaintiff plowed and disced about 15 acres on the defendant's farm at defendant's request.

Plaintiff did not live on defendant's farm and had no control over any of the buildings, nor did he pay rent for any of the buildings. Defendant told plaintiff what to plant, where to plant it, and when to fertilize. Defendant did not tell plaintiff how to use the pasture or hay ground. He was free to use that as he pleased. Plaintiff conceded most of the work was done under defendant's direction. Plaintiff paid for the weed spray and part of the fertilizer. His father paid for the rest of the fertilizer, because, as plaintiff said, 'I had no money.' Plaintiff or his father paid for the seed corn. Defendant told plaintiff when to pick the seed corn. He didn't tell him when to combine the beans, nor the oats, nor did he tell him how to spray the weeds or what solution to use. Other than the operation with the seed corn, defendant made suggestions as to how to farm the land but did not attempt to control it.

Defendant admitted a conversation with plaintiff about the middle of July to make 'certain farming arrangements.' Defendant said, 'We never came to any final understanding as to these arrangements.'

Defendant concedes he gave plaintiff no notice of termination of tenancy prior to November 1 and contends plaintiff was not entitled to such notice since he was only a cropper.

I. Plaintiff's petition is in two counts. One alleges a right to compensation for specific work done at defendant's request. It is unimportant to this appeal. The other count alleges an oral lease under the terms of which plaintiff became a tenant on defendant's 125-acre farm from March 1, 1965 to March 1, 1966. Defendant does not deny he entered into some agreement with plaintiff, nor that plaintiff actually worked his farm, but asserts he was a mere cropper.

This is of vital importance as plaintiff's case is based on his right to hold over for the 1966 crop year because defendant failed to terminate his lease under sections 562.6 and 562.7, Code of Iowa, 1962.

If plaintiff was a tenant, he was entitled to such notice; if a cropper, no notice was required.

Defendant argues the matter should not have been submitted to the jury because there was no evidence upon which they could find a landlord-tenant relationship. He claims plaintiff was a mere cropper as a matter of law and his motion for directed verdict on that ground should have been sustained.

A tenant has an interest in the land and has a right of property in the crop. A cropper has no such interest and works in consideration of receiving a portion of the crop for his labor. 21 Am.Jur.2d, Crops, section 35, page 618; Paulson v. Rogis, 247 Iowa 893, 896, 77 N.W.2d 33, 35; Davis v. Burton, 126 Mont. 137, 246 P.2d 236, 237.

We cannot say plaintiff was a cropper as a matter of law. The fact there is an agreement for a division of crops between the owner of land and the person working it does not alone determine the status of the parties. What the relationship is depends upon the true intention of the parties to be determined from all of the circumstances surrounding the making of the agreement. 52A C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant § 797, page 324; 21 Am.Jur.2d, Crops, section 39, page 622; Paulson v. Rogis, supra. Where the negotiations are oral and informal and the evidence is in dispute, ordinarily a jury question as to whether plaintiff is a tenant or cropper is presented. 21 Am.Jur.2d, Crops, section 38, page 622; 52A. C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 797, page 324; Smith v. McNew, Mo.App., 381 S.W.2d 369, 373; Hampton v. Struve, 160 Neb. 305, 70 N.W.2d 74, 78.

Defendant relies heavily on the fact plaintiff did not live on the premises and had no control over any of the buildings thereon. This is one factor to be considered but it is not of itself determinative. There are other elements, including who has the right of possession; who furnishes the supplies; who divides off the crops; how long the agreement extends; the extent of control exercised by the owner; and, if the agreement is in writing, the use of technical words therein. 42 Iowa Law Review 650, 651, footnote 4; Davis v. Burton, 126 Mont. 137, 246 P.2d 236, 238; 52 A C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 797(d), page 328. In Paulson v. Rogis, supra, we held the fact one did not live on the land did not necessarily make him a cropper.

In the case now before us there are some circumstances favorable to the argument plaintiff was a tenant, and others which would justify the conclusion he was a cropper. The negotiations were oral and informal; the evidence as to the intention with which the agreement was reached is both disputed and conflicting.

We agree with the trial court that under these circumstances the issue was for jury determination.

II. If the jury found plaintiff was a tenant during the 1965 crop season, it would follow he was entitled to notice of termination of such tenancy prior to November 1, 1965, under the terms of sections 562.6 and 562.7, Code of Iowa, 1962. Otherwise his right to possession of the farm would continue through the 1966 crop season on the same terms as the 1965 oral lease. This is the whole basis for plaintiff's action and is the only theory which he pleads.

His petition is short and we set out the important parts:

'* * * 3. That pursuant to an oral lease, the plaintiff operated the said real estate of the defendant * * * as a tenant during the period of March 1, 1965 to March 1, 1966, * * * on the following basis:

'a. One-half of all corn and soy beans harvested from said premises.

'b. $10.00 an acre for hay ground and pasture.

'd. Two-fifths of the oats harvested from said premises.

'4. * * *

'5. That the defendant failed to make any written demand for possession of said real estate as required by the statutes of the State of Iowa and in fact, requested the plaintiff to plow part of the premises, which the plaintiff did.

'6. That the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the said real estate during the crop year of March 1, 1966 to March 1, 1967 and was at all times ready, willing and able to farm said premises pursuant to Said oral agreement.

'7. * * *

'8. That by reason of the defendant's withholding the possession of the real estate from plaintiff, and his refusal to allow the plaintiff to farm said premises Pursuant to the oral lease, plaintiff has been damaged * * *.' (Emphasis added)

It is obvious that plaintiff alleges only a single oral lease, the one made for the farm year from March 1, 1965 to March 1, 1966, and that his right to possession of the land during...