McCarty v. Jeffers, 52784

• Decision Date: 12 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 52784,52784
• Citation: 261 Iowa 470,154 N.W.2d 718
• Parties: J. Robert McCARTY, Appellee, v. W. P. JEFFERS, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 718

154 N.W.2d 718

261 Iowa 470

J. Robert McCARTY, Appellee, v. W. P. JEFFERS, Appellant.

No. 52784.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 12, 1967.

George L. Norman, Keokuk, for appellant.

Johnson, Phelan & Tucker, Fort Madison, for appellee.

BECKER, Justice.

This is an action for specific performance. Plaintiff and his father-in-law, the defendant, signed a contract for the exchange of certain real estate. Specific performance was decreed by the trial court. We disagree.

The two parcels of land involved are referred to in the record as the home place and the Meister place.

Defendant Jeffers acquired the home place from his mother in 1938 and farmed it for a few years. Though larger when acquired, this tract consisted of about 60 acres at the times material here. The property had a home and buildings on it. Plaintiff and his family, at defendant's request, occupied and worked this farm in 1942. They remained until the latter part of May 1966.

Some conveyances occurred between the parties prior to 1947 but these actions do not affect the result here. In that year the parties had an opportunity to buy a 225 acre farm and did so. This property was known as the Meister place. It had no buildings. Title to both places was then placed in joint tenancy in the names of plaintiff McCarty And his wife, and defendant Jeffers And his wife. The validity of the precise form of ownership is not in question here. All four persons had record title ownership.

Beginning in 1949, the two families farmed the home place and the Meister place as a partnership, sharing equally the income and expenses. Both families lived in the house on the home place, which was divided to make separate living quarters.

The partnership farming arrangement continued, but with friction, until 1961. In that year the friction had become serious enough to cause the parties to attempt to change the situation.

On May 24, 1961, plaintiff and defendant talked about division of the farms and termination of the joint farming venture. Although both Mrs. McCarty and Mrs. Jeffers were present, their role in the discussion appears to have been more passive than active. All four witnesses agree the McCartys were to get the Meister place and the Jeffers would get the home place. Defendant stated the agreed additional compensation to be paid by McCarty was $10,000 and this was changed to $9,400 after they left the women and before this part of the agreement was reduced to writing. Mrs. Jeffers testified her understanding was the additional cash was to be $12,000 and she wouldn't have agreed to an exchange for less. Plaintiff did not state his memory of the amount agreed on at the oral discussion.

Defendant testified that as a part of this discussion it was agreed the personal property owned together by the parties would be sold and McCarty would arrange the auction. McCarty denies this and states Jeffers was to make any such arrangements.

On the same date McCarty and Jeffers went to the offices of a Keokuk attorney where an agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the two men. It made no mention of a contemplated sale of personal property. Neither of the wives was made party to the written contract; neither was present nor did either ever sign the agreement. Mrs. Jeffers states she had never given her husband authority to act for her. She did agree she regularly did what her husband requested in such matters.

The written agreement provided for Jeffers to have the home place and McCarty to have the Meister place. McCarty was to pay Jeffers $9,400 within 30 days. The provision for the termination of the joint farming venture was that any income or expense 'incurred as a result of selling of corn now on all of said property shall be shared equally.' Each grantee was to have the growing crops then on the tract to be acquired. No mention was made of possession date.

McCarty contacted the bank for financing. He received a commitment for a $15,000 loan, $9,400 of which was to be used in the real estate trade. He did not arrange for a farm sale of the personal property owned by the partnership. He wanted to keep his half without sale as this would be cheaper than having a sale and buying it back. Defendant insists plaintiff was to make sale arrangements and it was the failure to do so which caused defendant to refuse to complete the trade. Plaintiff states he did talk about the auctioneer to be hired but denies he agreed to a sale at any specific time or as a condition to completion of the contract.

Plaintiff testified that on the 30th day after execution of the written contract he stayed home to pay defendant, but the parties apparently did not discuss the matter (though they lived in the same house). The sale was not completed.

Defendant contends plaintiff never did tender performance. Plaintiff states he made several offers of performance.

About six weeks after the date for completion of the contract, both parties and their wives borrowed $15,000 from the same bank on a joint loan using the jointly owned real property as collateral, paid off their respective obligations and continued farming in partnership for the next four or five years. Of course plaintiff's solo loan was never processed. The papers remained with the bank, along with plaintiff's copy of the contract until 1966 when plaintiff got the contract from the banker, consulted a lawyer, moved out of the house and started this action. Plaintiff said he had tried several times during the interim to get defendant to change his mind. Defendant testified no such efforts were made and the first time the matter was again discussed was in the spring of 1966 just before suit was filed.

I. Action for specific performance of a contract is cognizable in equity. Baker v. Fowler, 215 Iowa 1157, 247 N.W. 676...