Longfellow v. Sayler

• Decision Date: 10 August 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-1767.,05-1767.
• Citation: 737 N.W.2d 148
• Parties: Jerry D. LONGFELLOW, Appellant, v. Hal SAYLER, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

737 N.W.2d 148

Jerry D. LONGFELLOW, Appellant, v. Hal SAYLER, Appellee.

No. 05-1767.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

August 10, 2007.

Richard L. Wilson of Wilson & Spurrier, P.C., Lenox, and Richard O. McConville of Coppola, Sandre, McConville & Carroll, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.

Stuart D. Nielsen and Stephanie M. Nielsen of Nielsen & Nielsen, P.C., Corning, for appellee.

WIGGINS, Justice.

A landowner and his neighbor had a dispute over an agreement to erect and maintain a partition fence between their properties. The landowner requested the fence viewers determine whether the neighbor's fence complied with the agreement. The fence viewers determined the fence complied with the agreement. The landowner appealed the fence viewers' decision to the district court. The district court agreed with the fence viewers and entered judgment for the neighbor. On our review, we find as a matter of law the record establishes the neighbor's fence did not comply with the agreement. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for the district court to enter judgment in favor of the landowner consistent with this opinion.

I. Background Facts.

Jerry Longfellow and Carolyn Sayler owned adjoining parcels of land sharing a boundary fence line. Since 1955 Longfellow has operated a cattle and row crop farm on his property. Originally, there was a fence between the Longfellow and Sayler farms. However, the fence was not adequate to keep cattle from mixing between the Sayler and Longfellow operations. Due to these problems, Longfellow and Carolyn Sayler entered into a voluntary fence division agreement. Longfellow's attorney drafted the agreement. The parties signed the agreement and recorded it with the Taylor county recorder on September 30, 1977.

After providing the legal description for the Longfellow and Sayler plots, the agreement defines the duties of each party. The agreement states for the common fence lying between the Longfellow and Sayler parcels, Longfellow "shall have the responsibility for the construction, maintenance and repair of the North 80 rods of such common fence" and Sayler "shall have the responsibility for the construction, maintenance and repair of the South 80 rods of the common fence." The agreement also provides:

that both parties are to have their portion of said fences so erected and/or repaired and maintained on or before December 31, 1977, and thereafter to so maintain the stated portions assigned to such party as per this Agreement.

Under the agreement, Longfellow and Carolyn Sayler

agreed that should either party bring all of their portion of the fence to a tight fence condition as defined by Section 113.20 of the 1977 Code of Iowa, that the other party hereto shall bring all of their portions of such fence to such tight fence condition within ninety days.

Section 113.20 of the 1977 Code defined a tight fence. It stated:

All tight partition fences shall consist of:

1. Not less than twenty-six inches of substantial woven wire on the bottom, with three strands of barbed wire with not less than thirty-six barbs of at least two points to the rod, on top, the top wire to be not less than forty-eight inches, nor more than fifty-four inches high.

2. Good substantial woven wire not less than forty-eight inches nor more than fifty-four inches high with one barbed wire of not less than thirty-six barbs of two points to the rod, not more than four inches above said woven wire.

3. Any other kind of a tight partition fence, which in the opinion of the fence viewers, is equivalent thereto.

Iowa Code § 113.20 (1977).¹ Longfellow and Carolyn Sayler agreed the fence agreement should be construed as a covenant and as binding against the parties and their grantees, executors, administrators, heirs, devisees, successors, or assigns.

Carolyn Sayler passed away and her son, Hal Sayler (Sayler), the defendant in this action, purchased the Sayler farm. Sayler now represents all interests in the real estate described in the fence agreement. When Sayler purchased the farm, he knew there was a fence agreement between the Sayler farm and the Longfellow farm. Sayler admits the agreement was and is a covenant running with the land and is binding on him.

Longfellow's fence is constructed of thirty-nine-inch woven wire, with two barbed wires on top and one barbed wire on the bottom of the fence. Longfellow did not offer any evidence about the condition of the Sayler fence prior to Sayler's purchase of the farm. The photographs entered into evidence show the old Sayler fence had three barbed wires and did not contain any woven wire. It is not clear from the record when the old Sayler fence was built or what the condition of the fence was in 1977 when the fence agreement was recorded.

After Sayler acquired the property, Longfellow approached Sayler and asked him to bring his fence to a tight condition. Sayler told Longfellow he was only going to install a barbed-wire fence because Sayler thought a tight fence was too expensive. Sayler testified he did not want to put a woven-wire fence in because a woven-wire fence is more difficult to maintain.

Longfellow sent Sayler a letter through the sheriff's office requesting Sayler to bring his fence to a tight condition. Longfellow also sent a notice to the township trustees about the dispute. After Sayler received Longfellow's letter he contacted the township trustees and inquired whether he was required under the agreement to build a woven-wire fence or if a five-barbed-wire fence would conform to the agreement.

Sayler contends the trustees informed him a fence constructed of five strands of barbed wire would suffice under the agreement. Sayler went ahead, and in the face of Longfellow's objections, built the five-barbed-wire fence with posts at approximately every ten or twelve feet of the fence line.

II. Prior Proceedings.

By sending the letter to Sayler and notifying the township trustees, Longfellow invoked the powers of the fence viewers to determine the fence controversy. Iowa Code §§ 359A.3, .4, .9 (2003).² Three trustees, acting as fence viewers, came out to the fence line and viewed the fence. The fence viewers issued an order finding the Sayler fence to be lawful and tight. The fence viewers assessed Longfellow with the costs of the fence-viewing proceeding.

Longfellow appealed the fence viewers' decision to the district court. As an affirmative defense, Sayler asserted he complied with the fence agreement because the fence viewers determined his fence was lawful and tight.

Prior to trial Longfellow filed a motion in limine claiming the order of the fence viewers was not admissible at trial. The district court sustained the motion. At trial the district court reversed itself and allowed Sayler to enter the order of the fence viewers. The district court changed its ruling because it now understood the case involved "an interpretation of a fence agreement already in existence which incorporates code sections which specifically provides as one option a finding by the trustees of what is an equivalent tight fence." Accordingly, the district court considered the order relevant.

The district court found the agreement between the parties clearly refers to Code section 113.20. The court further found although Sayler's fence did not comply with either subsection 113.20(1) or (2), it did comply with subsection 113.20(3), which allows the fence viewers to determine whether a fence is equivalent to a tight fence.

Further, because the district court found "the Sayler fence has never been anything but a barbed-wire fence" and, "for 27 years, [Longfellow] did not seek to enforce the tight fence requirement," it concluded Longfellow was precluded from enforcement of the tight fence requirement by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel by acquiescence. The district court dismissed Longfellow's petition and taxed all costs to him.

Longfellow filed a motion to amend or enlarge the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court denied Longfellow's motion.

III. Issues.

Longfellow appeals claiming the district court erred: (1) in admitting the order of the fence viewers; (2) in finding the Sayler fence was in compliance with the agreement; and (3) by applying two affirmative defenses not pled by Sayler. Sayler agreed he did not plead either of the affirmative defenses and therefore, he waived these issues. Consequently, we will only address the first two issues raised by Longfellow.

IV. Standard of Review.

Although the clerk docketed this case in equity, Longfellow filed it as an appeal of the fence viewers' decision. In his appeal Longfellow requested the decision of the fence viewers be reversed and the court to enforce the agreement. The standard of review on appeal is not governed by how the clerk docketed the case, but rather by how the parties tried the case in the district court. Henning v. Security Bank, 564 N.W.2d 398, 399 (Iowa 1997).

The parties tried the case as an appeal from the fence viewers' decision, which necessarily included an interpretation of the agreement. An appeal from a decision of the fence viewers is triable as a law action. Moore v. Short, 227 Iowa 380, 381, 288 N.W. 407, 408 (1939). Therefore, we review an appeal from the district court's decision in a fence-viewing case for the correction of errors at law. Duncalf v. Ritscher Farms, Inc., 627 N.W.2d 906, 908 (Iowa 2001). Thus, we are bound by the district court's well-supported factual findings, but not by its legal conclusions. Falczynski v. Amoco Oil Co., 533 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 1995).

The construction and interpretation of a contract is generally reviewed as a matter of law. Hartig Drug Co. v. Hartig, 602 N.W.2d 794, 797 (Iowa 1999). The construction or interpretation made by the district court is not binding on us. Id. However, if the district court's interpretation was predicated upon extrinsic evidence, the findings of the...