Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Westco Agronomy Co., LLC v. Wollesen

Court of Appeal of Iowa

October 23, 2013

WESTCO AGRONOMY COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM S. WOLLESEN a/k/a BILL WOLLESEN, KRISTI J.WOOLESEN, WILLIAM S. AND KRISTI J. WOOLESEN REVOCABLE TRUST, JOHN W. WOLLESEN, IOWA PLAINS FARMS and CHAD A. HARTZLER, Defendants. CARROLL COUNTY STATE BANK, Intervenor-Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon, Judge.

Westco Agronomy Company (Westco) appeals the district court order granting Carroll County State Bank's (Bank) motion for summary judgment.

Thomas W. Polking of Wilcox, Polking, Gerken, Schwarzkopf, Copeland & Williams, P.C., Jefferson, for appellant.

Thomas H. Walton of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Andrew J. Boettger of Hastings, Gartin & Boettger, L.L.P., Ames, for Chad Hartzler.

Mark McCormick of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for Iowa Plains and Willeson.

Jon Peter Sullivan of Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C., Des Moines, for intervenor-appellee.

Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.

BOWER, J.

Westco Agronomy Company (Westco) appeals the district court order granting Carroll County State Bank's (Bank) motion for summary judgment. Westco argues the district court improperly ruled the Bank is entitled to possession of two checks representing the proceeds from the sale of grain, and erred in failing to apply the doctrine of marshaling, which would require the Bank use other funds to satisfy a debt. We find Westco has failed to preserve error on the applicability of Iowa Code section 554.1309 (2011) concerning acceleration clauses and has not raised a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of marshaling. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This appeal is the result of a disagreement involving several entities over who is entitled to two checks representing the proceeds of grain sales. The Bank is an intervenor in the underlying suit between Westco and Iowa Plains Farms (IPF), the entity which grew, harvested, and sold the grain.[1]

For purposes of this appeal, the facts are as follows: IPF is an agricultural operation. The operation is financed on a yearly basis with an operating loan from the Bank. Each year IPF executes a promissory note known as the yearly operating note. To protect its interests the Bank executes a security agreement perfecting its rights in the proceeds of the grain, which is grown as part of the operation. On February 23, 2011, IPF took out the 2011 operating note, due on March 1, 2012. The Bank executed a security agreement for the proceeds of the grain. The same process was repeated for the 2012 crop with a loan date of December 22, 2011, and a due date of January 10, 2013. A new security agreement was filed for the 2012 operating note. In each instance, the security agreement contained a future advances clause, as did a financing statement previously filed by the Bank with the Iowa Secretary of State on May 7, 2002.[2]

Westco filed a financing statement perfecting an interest in the proceeds of the sale of the same grain on September 22, 2011, with an amendment following the next day. The financing statement was related to agricultural supplies provided by Westco to IPF. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.