Hansen v. Sweet
| Decision Date | 18 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 15516,15516 |
| Citation | 108 Idaho 785,702 P.2d 823 |
| Parties | Mark HANSEN, and Mark Hansen as personal representative of the Estate of Janet F. Hansen, deceased, Plaintiff-appellants, v. William E. SWEET and Bonnie C. Sweet, husband and wife, Defendant-respondents, and HANSEN RANCH, INC., Intervenor plaintiff-Counterdefendant-respondent, v. Mark HANSEN, and Mark Hansen as personal representative of the Estate of Janet F. Hansen, deceased, Intervenor defendants-Counterclaimants-appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Henry McQuade of Adamson, Young & McQuade, Nampa, for plaintiff-appellants.
Stanley Welsh of Clemons, Cosho & Humphrey, Boise, for intervenor respondent.
Eugene D. Fredericksen of Rettig, Fredericksen & Williams, Jerome, for respondents.
The sole issue on appeal is the division of crop share rental proceeds between a purchaser and vendor, where the purchaser has defaulted and forfieted all interest in real property to the vendor. We reverse the district court and hold 1 that: the purchaser is entitled to crop share rentals on crops severed prior to forfeiture, less the landlord's share of expenses incurred prior to forfeiture; and the vendor is entitled to crop share rentals for crops severed after forfeiture, less the landlord's share of expenses incurred after forfeiture.
Mark Hansen was the "vendor," and Hansen's Ranch, Inc., 2 was the assignee of the "purchaser," in an installment land contract for the sale of Mark Hansen's ranch. Purchaser's intention was to develop a hunting and fishing club on the ranch. Purchaser initially took possession, but then granted a share crop lease of the entire ranch to defendant Sweet, "tenant" under the lease, reserving the hunting and fishing rights so long as these activities would not conflict with the farming operation.
Purchaser defaulted on the contract and complicated long term litigation ensued with vendor. In a previous opinion we detailed this litigation, and our previous opinion also settled certain issues raised in this appeal. See Hansen v. Flyer's, Inc., 107 Idaho 472, 690 P.2d 927 (1985). We do not restate those facts and holdings here. It is sufficient to say that vendor and purchaser entered into a modified agreement on which purchaser also defaulted. On July 21, 1982, vendor sent a notice of default stating his intentions to cancel the contract and declare all purchaser's interest forfeited if the default was not cured within 60 days. Purchaser failed to cure, and it is uncontested that forfeiture occurred on September 20, 1982, 60 days after the default notice. On this date, only part of the crops had been severed and harvested. Vendor did not attempt to oust the tenant Sweet prior to completion of the 1982 harvest. Sweet completed the harvest in October and November and supposedly left enough "grain certificates" at a local elevator to cover the crop share rentals for 1982 and a partial carryover from 1981.
Vendor Hansen filed a complaint against the tenant Sweet demanding a rental accounting and claiming rights to the total crop share rentals. Purchaser Hansen's Ranch, Inc., intervened in the lawsuit, also claiming full entitlement to the crop share rentals. Both vendor and purchaser moved for summary judgment based on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and the transcript of the prior lawsuit between vendor and purchaser. The district court granted summary judgment and ruled that purchaser and vendor were entitled to that portion of the crop share rentals for the year 1982 equal to the percentage of the year each party was in possession prior to and after September 20, 1982, the date of forfeiture. Hence, purchaser was awarded 263/365ths, or 72%, and vendor was awarded 102/365ths, or 28%, of the crop share rentals after the landlord's expenses for seed and fertilizer were deducted, according to the lease agreement with the tenant. Purchaser was also awarded the entire crop share for 1981.
We are persuaded that the district court erred in the division of the 1982 crop share rentals. Although the district court cited no authority for the division set out above, the only authority which might support such a division is Ferguson v. Sullivan, 58 Idaho 428, 74 P.2d 183 (1937). However, the Ferguson rule is based on statutes applicable to an execution sale by a judgment debtor or mortgage foreclosure sale in which the prior title owner has a right of redemption. See Chapter 6, Title 11, Idaho Code; I.C. § 11-407. This statutory division of rent is not applicable to the present case in which purchaser had only a purchaser's interest through the executory contract for sale and had no right of redemption in the event the purchaser's interest was forfeited.
The general rule is well settled that crops grown and severed through labor and industry belong to the possessor of the land, regardless of whether the possessor is title owner, equitable owner under an executory contract for sale, tenant, or adverse possessor. See Fritcher v. Kelley, 34 Idaho 468, 201 P. 1037 (1921); Peacock v. Bradshaw, 50 Idaho 117, 293 P. 982 (1930); Davis v. Pancheri, 72 Idaho 28, 236 P.2d 716 (1951); Annot., 95 A.L.R. 1127 (193...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First State Bank of Eldorado v. Rowe
...Pro Indivisio the right to possession following redemption extends to any crops growing on the Subject Property, Hansen v. Sweet, 108 Idaho 785, 787, 702 P.2d 823, 825 (1985), regardless of the time of redemption. Pro Indivisio asserts the bright line rule that the Rowes would be entitled t......
- Boise Car and Truck Rental Co. v. Waco, Inc.
- Barab v. Plumleigh