Gemkist Farms, Inc. v. Bolen

Decision Date16 March 1982
Docket NumberNo. 12992,12992
PartiesGEMKIST FARMS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Del BOLEN and Fern Bolen, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Peter J. Boyd of Elam, Burke, Evans, Boyd & Koontz, Boise, for defendants-appellants.

Ronald P. Rainey of Alexanderson, Davis, Rainey & Whitney, Caldwell, for plaintiff-respondent.

WALTERS, Chief Judge.

Gemkist Farms, Inc. leased one of its farms to Bolen for a specified period on an equal crop-share basis. Near the end of the lease period, Gemkist decided not to renew the agreement. When Bolen remained on the property beyond the lease period, Gemkist filed suit to regain possession of the farm, and for an accounting of all sales of crops and livestock raised on the premises. Judgment was awarded to Gemkist after trial to the court. We affirm.

On appeal, Bolen argues the trial court made several errors in the administration of the litigation. Briefly, the alleged errors are: (1) submission of the accounting task to a master, (2) insufficiency of the evidence to establish the value of certain "bee boards", (3) wrongly excluding evidence, and (4) improperly delegating the task of preparing written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Confronted with the need for extensive computations, the trial court determined the accounting task should be submitted to a special master. The court so informed counsel for the parties at a pretrial conference. Neither party objected to the appointment of a master at the time, and the court directed Bolen's counsel to prepare an appropriate order appointing the master. When the master's report was filed with the court prior to trial, no objections were made to its contents nor to the propriety of the appointment. At a subsequent conference, immediately preceding the trial, the court determined the master's findings adequately resolved many of the issues, and again no one objected. Bolen now argues, raising the issue for the first time, that it was error for the court to submit the accounting task to a master. Because the objection was made for the first time in this court and after the judgment had been entered, the question of whether the master's appointment or his findings was proper is deemed waived. Morton v. Morton Realty Co., 41 Idaho 729, 241 P. 1014 (1925). See also I.R.C.P. 53(e)(2).

One of the issues at trial concerned the value of "bee boards". Alfalfa was grown on the farm as a seed crop. For alfalfa seed production, tiny leafcutter bees are used to polinate the alfalfa crop. These bees are housed in "bee boards", lumber with hundreds of holes drilled into the wood in which the bees build cells for shelter and reproduction. Following the presentation of the evidence, the trial court determined that bee boards jointly purchased by the parties had a value of $1,704.70, which should be evenly divided between the parties. This figure was reached by depreciating the purchase price at a rate of 20% per year over a four year period. Bolen contends this determination was based on insufficient evidence. He asserts that he was the only witness qualified to testify regarding the actual value of these specific bee boards. We disagree.

Gemkist presented four witnesses who testified concerning the quality and value of the bee boards in question. Mr. John R. Robinson, Sr. and Mr. John R. Robinson, Jr., officers of plaintiff corporation, who were familiar with the farming operation, gave evidence on the purchase of the bee boards and their value at the time of the trial. Dr. Norman Waters, an entomologist specializing in leafcutter bees, examined samples of the bee boards in detail and also testified regarding their quality. Mr. Fred Clark, experienced in the buying and selling of bee boards, testified in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Braun v. Ada County
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1982
    ... ... Just's, Inc. v. Arrington Construction Co., 99 Idaho 462, 583 P.2d 997 (1978); Bush v ... ...
  • R.T. Nahas Co. v. Hulet
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 1983
    ...on appeal. E.g. W.F. Construction Company, Inc. v. Kalik, 103 Idaho 713, 652 P.2d 661 (Ct.App.1982); accord Gemkist Farms, Inc. v. Bolen, 102 Idaho 906, 643 P.2d 1076 (Ct.App.1982) (failure to object to court's action in appointing a master waived the question of propriety of the II. SIZE O......
  • Seccombe v. Weeks, 17022
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 1989
    ...for appeal. See 9 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2612 at 805-06 (1971). Compare Gemkist Farms, Inc. v. Bolen, 102 Idaho 906, 643 P.2d 1076 (Ct.App.1982) (objection to appointment of master deemed waived if not timely made). See also Owen v. Boydstun, 102 Idaho 31, 6......
  • Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass'n, Inc. v. Bird
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1983
    ...decline to consider it here. See e.g., W.F. Constr. Co. v. Kalik, 103 Idaho 713, 652 P.2d 661 (Ct.App.1982); Gemkist Farms, Inc. v. Bolen, 102 Idaho 906, 643 P.2d 1076 (Ct.App.1982). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT