Walker v. Walker, A20-0675
| Decision Date | 15 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-0675 |
| Parties | Eric S. Walker, Respondent, v. Steven D. Walker, defendant, Lynn M. Walker, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Affirmed
Wabasha County District Court
Dominique J. Navarro, Thomas R. Braun, Bruce K. Piotrowski, Restovich Braun & Associates, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)
John T. Giesen, Ken D. Schueler, Courtney D. Logli, Dunlap and Seeger, P.A., Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
In this civil action, a jury found that appellant entered into an oral contract to transfer 80 acres of a family farm to respondent, and the district court granted specific performance. The jury also found that appellant entered into an oral contract to compensate respondent for his work on the farm over several years, and the district court awarded monetary damages.
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her posttrial motions. She argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding the land contract because there was not clear and convincing evidence of an oral contract and because the contract was void under the statute of frauds. Appellant also argues that she is entitled to a new trial on the issue of her liability for respondent's farm services because the district court allowed inadmissible hearsay at the trial. We affirm.
This case involves a dispute between family members over agreements concerning the family's farm. Appellant Lynn Walker and defendant Steve Walker were married during most of the relevant time frame.1 Respondent Eric Walker is Lynn and Steve's adult son. Lynn is the sole appellant; Steve is listed on the case caption as Lynn's codefendant, but he aligned with Eric at trial and did not file an appeal.
Eric brought a civil action against Lynn and Steve in April 2018. The action centered on his parents' farm, where Eric had worked for many years. The complaint alleged that in 2004 the parties entered into an oral contract (Contract 1) in which Lynn and Steve agreed to transfer the farm to Eric when they retired if Eric would work the farm until their retirement and make investments in the farm such as erecting additional grain bins. The complaint also alleged that, at the same time, Lynn and Steve entered into a separate oral contract with Eric (Contract 2) to pay Eric after each farming season for his labor and expenses, including the use of farm machinery that Eric owned. Eric agreed to provide his parents with a bill for his labor and expenses after each season.
According to the complaint, by fall 2013, Lynn and Steve had not paid Eric for any of his farm labor or expenses from 2004 through 2013, which totaled approximately $370,000. The complaint further alleged that the parties entered into a third oral contract (Contract 3) in 2013: Lynn and Steve agreed to transfer 80 acres of the farm to Eric so that he could build a house, and Eric agreed that this transfer would constitute payment of Lynn and Steve's outstanding debt. Eric also promised to continue working on the farm. That fall, Lynn and Steve "portioned off" an 80-acre parcel from their 252-acre farm and Eric began building a house on the parcel. Eric continued to provide farm services for his parents. But, according to the complaint, Lynn and Steve never transferred the 80 acres to Eric and they never paid Eric for any of his farm services.
Eric brought several claims against Lynn and Steve, including breach of contract. The complaint sought relief on all three contracts. It sought specific performance of Contract 3 for the 80 acres of land on which Eric had built his house and of Contract 1 for transfer of the entire farm to Eric upon his parents' retirement, as well as monetary damages for his services under Contract 2 from 2014 through 2017. In her answer, Lynn denied that the parties ever entered into any contracts. Lynn also brought several counterclaims against Eric, including civil battery and trespass to chattels.
Following discovery, Lynn moved for partial summary judgment on several of Eric's claims, including the breach-of-contract claim. She argued that there was insufficient evidence of an oral agreement to transfer any portion of the farmland. The district court granted summary judgment for Lynn in part, dismissing Eric's claims with respect to Contract 1 for transfer of the entire farm upon his parents' retirement, based on the vagueness of the alleged contract. But the district court determined that Eric had shown that the terms of Contract 2 for payment of Eric's farm services were clear and definite. The district court also determined that Eric had presented clear evidence of Contract 3 for the transfer of 80 acres of the farm. Additionally, the district court concluded that Contract 3 was removed from the statute of frauds because Eric's evidence established that the part-performance exception would apply. Consequently, the district court denied Lynn's summary-judgment motion with respect to Contracts 2 and 3.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial, which lasted nine days. Various witnesses testified to the following facts.
Eric testified about the alleged contracts. He stated that his parents bought the farm in 2003 from his grandmother and that he worked on the farm at that time while also doing side jobs. Eric testified that, in 2004, his parents agreed to transfer the entire farm to him when they retired if he stayed, worked the farm, and invested in the farm. According to Eric, his parents also agreed to pay him for his labor and expenses, including use of his machinery. The agreements were not put in writing, Eric said, because he trusted his parents.
Eric further testified that, in 2013, his parents had not yet paid him for any of his services on the farm and that, by then, they owed him about $370,000. His parents therefore agreed to transfer 80 acres of the farm to him in exchange for the $370,000 that they owed. Eric agreed to this arrangement. The oral agreement occurred "[a]t the kitchen table . . . about mid[-]year," with just Eric and his parents present. Eric gave the following explanation about what he and his parents discussed:
[M]y parents agreed to transfer me the 80 acres in lieu of $350,000 that they owed me at the time because I had not been paid for the money, my services that they owed me. They had not paid me so they agreed to transfer 80 acres of the Walker farm to me for the $370,000 that they owed me. . . . [T]hey had to do the 80 acres because I was engaged to get married. We were, me and my wife, were talking about moving away, and I wanted to either go buy a house somewhere or build a house on the farm.
As with the earlier agreements, Eric did not get the agreement in writing because he trusted his parents.
Eric testified that he had worked on the farm since the parties entered into their agreement for farm services in 2004 and that he gave his parents a bill after each farming season from 2004 to 2018 showing the work he had completed. Eric further testified that his father signed each bill after review with Eric and Lynn. Eric introduced evidence of these bills at trial in the form of Exhibits 3 and 4.
Exhibit 3 consists of bills showing Eric's time and expenses for each farming season from 2004 to 2018. The bills for 2004 through 2013 are handwritten on notebook paper, and those after 2013 are handwritten on letterhead containing Eric's business name and contact information. Each bill also contains Steve's signature at the bottom, except for the bill concerning the 2018 season. Exhibit 4 consists of "recreations" of the handwritten bills from 2004 to 2013, but on Eric's official business letterhead. The bills in Exhibit 4 contain the same substantive information as those in Exhibit 3. Eric testified that he recreated the 2004 to 2013 bills (in Exhibit 4) on letterhead after he purchased a computer in 2014.
At trial, plaintiff's counsel stated that the reason for admitting Exhibit 4 in addition to Exhibit 3 was to show that Eric wanted to formalize the bills for 2004 to 2013 because his parents had not transferred the 80 acres as promised to pay their outstanding debt for those years. Defense counsel objected to the exhibits, arguing, among other things, that the bills were inadmissible hearsay. The district court overruled the objections and allowed the exhibits to be admitted.
Steve testified at trial to the family dealings, providing a similar version of the events as Eric. He discussed Contracts 1 and 2, saying that he and Lynn told Eric that they "would give him the farm at our retirement" if he would work the farm and make investments in the farm instead of pursuing other opportunities. Steve testified that he and Lynn also agreed to compensate Eric for his time, labor, and expenses while working on the farm. The parties agreed that Eric would present invoices to Steve and Lynn on an annual basis, and that they intended to pay him each year. Steve further testified that Eric presented the bills as agreed upon and that Steve signed each one after "sit[ting] down" with Eric to discuss the work performed. Steve also testified that Lynn was present at the meetings where Eric and Steve reviewed the bills and that she never voiced any objection to the time and amounts requested.
Steve further testified about Contract 3 for the 80-acre parcel. He initially said that the parties discussed the matter in 2014, but then acknowledged that it must have happened earlier, before construction of the house began. He recalled that "[he] and Eric and Lynn sat down, and [they] had a conversation about splitting an 80 acres off." During the conversation, Eric mentioned that Steve and Lynn had not paid his bi...
To continue reading
Request your trial