Morling v. Schmidt, 64133
| Citation | 299 N.W.2d 480 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 64133,64133 |
| Parties | M. W. H. MORLING, Appellant, v. James SCHMIDT, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
John D. Brown of Berkland & Brown, Emmetsburg, for appellant.
No appearance for the appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, HARRIS, LARSON and SCHULTZ, JJ.
This is a forcible entry and detainer action brought by plaintiff under the provisions of ch. 648, The Code, to challenge defendant's right to possession under an oral lease. Although finding defendant's possession was unlawful, the trial court held plaintiff had failed to bring his action within thirty days from the date defendant wrongfully entered the premises (§ 648.18, The Code) and dismissed the petition. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Plaintiff orally leased a tract of land to defendant in 1975 solely to graze cattle. None of the land was under cultivation. The term of the lease was for the "pasture year of 1975" and the rent was $300. The lease was orally renewed for 1976, 1977 and 1978. In March or April of each year, defendant would place cattle on the land for grazing, and he would remove them around November of each year.
During the summer of 1978, plaintiff began work to bring the land under cultivation, draining the sizeable slough located thereon and employing help to tile the ground. He notified defendant on November 6, 1978, that his lease was terminated. Defendant responded that he "planned" to continue using the land in 1979, asserting plaintiff's notice was ineffective because it did not comply with section 562.5, The Code, requiring that notice of termination of farm leases be given not later than September 1.
In November 1978 defendant removed his cattle as was his usual custom. He left some personal property on the premises including fencing, a feeder, a water tank, an electric motor, and a pump jack. Defendant also paid the minimum charge for electrical power during the winter months.
Early in April, plaintiff had the property surveyed and staked for tiling purposes. Shortly thereafter defendant moved his cattle back onto the property. They quickly destroyed all surveying stakes and other evidence of the work plaintiff had done.
On May 3, 1979, plaintiff served defendant with a three-day notice to quit. When defendant ignored the notice, plaintiff filed a petition in forcible entry and detainer. Defendant raised the notice requirements of section 562.5, The Code, as a defense. The trial court ruled against him, holding that this statute was not applicable because the land was not under cultivation. We agree that notice under section 562.5 is required only when the land is both occupied and under cultivation. The land in question was not cultivated. It was used for grazing only. The trial court was right in so ruling. See Paulson v. Rogis, 247 Iowa 893, 895, 77 N.W.2d 33, 35 (1956); Black's Law Dictionary, at 454 (Rev. 4th ed. 1968).
Trial court further ruled, however, that plaintiff's cause of action was barred because he had not brought it within the time permitted by section 648.18, The Code. The correctness of this ruling depends on whether defendant's wrongful possession began on November 6, 1978, when notice of termination was given, or the following April, when defendant placed his cattle on the land. If the former, the action was not timely; if the latter, it was. We believe plaintiff is right in saying his action did not mature until April, 1979. We therefore reverse the trial court.
The lease was made for the "pasture year." Defendant says this meant the full year beginning each April. Plaintiff says it meant only the usual time during which cattle may be grazed, approximately from April through November. Defendant's only purpose in leasing the land was to graze his cattle. The land was not suitable for cultivation and cultivation was not contemplated. Defendant used the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Harden, 15-0683
...to avoid having productive farmland go to waste by requiring significant advance notice before a change in possession occurred.In Morling v. Schmidt , we decided that the existing law did not apply to premises used only for grazing rather than growing crops. 299 N.W.2d 480, 481 (Iowa 1980).......
-
Jamison v. Knosby
...served with a notice of forfeiture. Possession requires an act of dominion or control over the property in question. Morling v. Schmidt, 299 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Iowa 1980). In determining what acts demonstrate possession of land, our cases have referred to "conduct which gives notice" to the p......
-
Dorsey v. Dorsey, 94-1619
...ground. If the land is leased as pasture land, then a tenant is not necessarily entitled to notice under the statute. In Morling v. Schmidt, 299 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1980), land was leased solely to graze cattle, no land was under cultivation, and the lease was for what was termed a "pasture ye......
-
Porter v. Harden, 15–0683.
...not “cultivating” a farm at the time the notice of tenancy termination was sent. They were simply grazing a horse. See Morling v. Schmidt, 299 N.W.2d 480, 481 (Iowa 1980) (rejecting argument that section 562.5 notice was required to evict a tenant who was grazing cattle on leased land, reas......