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.

Kunde v. Estate of Bowman

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 21, 2018

RONALD DWIGHT KUNDE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ESTATE OF BOWMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.

         Appeal from the grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

          D. Flint Drake and Samuel M. DeGree of Drake Law Firm, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.

          Bradley T. Boffeli of Boffeli & Spannagel, P.C., Maquoketa, for appellees.

          Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.

          MCDONALD, Judge.

         This case involves an option to purchase farmland allegedly orally granted by one farmer to his neighbor. At issue in this case is whether the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

         This is the second time this matter has been before the court. In our prior opinion, we succinctly set forth the material facts:

Farmer Ronald Kunde claimed neighbor Arthur Bowman granted him an oral option to purchase his farm for approximately $3000 an acre at an unspecified time in the future. Kunde leased the Bowman farm and made substantial improvements to the property, which he alleged were consideration for the option to purchase.

Kunde v. Bowman, No. 15-1483, 2016 WL 5408356, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016).

         Subsequent to the alleged grant of the option to purchase, Bowman sold the property to a third person. See id. Kunde sued Bowman, asserting claims for breach of contract and "equitable claims." See id. The jury found in favor of Kunde on his breach of contract claim and awarded damages, but the jury made no findings on the equitable claims pursuant to the district court's instructions. See id. The district court granted Bowman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denied Kunde's motion for new trial. In our prior opinion, this court affirmed the district court, determining there was not substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict on the contract claim. Specifically, this court found there was no agreement on the essential terms of the purported option to purchase. See id. at *2 ("The record lacks substantial evidence to support essential terms of the contract, most notably the deadline for exercising the option to purchase the Bowman farm."). This court remanded the matter for new trial on Kunde's remaining equitable claims. See id.

         After remand, Bowman sought summary judgment on the equitable claims. The summary judgment record showed Kunde entered into a series of written farm lease agreements with Bowman. Several of the written farm lease agreements included addendums governing the allocation of expenses for improvements. The 2008 lease addendum is representative:

1. Any construction, removal, or maintenance of property fence lines will be ...

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.