Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-946 / 09-0797 Filed December 30, 2009

BRIAN FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS SCHWICKERATH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the district courts entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. AFFIRMED.

Nathaniel W. Schwickerath of Schwickerath, P.C., New Hampton, for appellant. Joseph P. Braun of Elwood, ODonohoe, Braun & White, L.L.P., Cresco, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.

2 DANILSON, J. This case involves the efficacy of a notice to terminate a farm lease under Iowa Code section 562.5 (2007). On or about April 24, 2006, plaintiff Brian Foster and defendant Curtis Schwickerath entered into a written farm lease, under which Foster leased approximately 252 acres of farmland in Howard County to Schwickerath. Although the lease term was identified as one year, Schwickerath continued to lease the land during the 2007 and 2008 crop years. On or about August 6, 2008, Schwickerath received, by certified mail, a written "Lease Termination Notice" from Foster, stating: "This letter will serve as formal notification that your lease will terminate effective December 31, 2008, on the farm located at: . . . ." Thereafter, in a letter dated September 19, 2008,

Schwickerath informed Foster that the notice of termination did not comply with section 562.5 because it did not fix the date of termination of the lease as March 1, 2009. On October 22, 2008, Foster filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting the district court to declare that the letter was a valid termination of the farm tenancy. Schwickerath answered and filed a motion for summary

judgment, which the court denied. Foster filed a motion for summary judgment on March 17, 2009. After a hearing, the court granted the motion. Schwickerath now appeals.1 We review the district courts summary judgment ruling for the
Before we can reach the merits of the appeal, we must address Fosters contention that this matter is moot. ",,An issue is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because it is has become academic or nonexistent. The test is whether the courts opinion would be of force or effect in the underlying controversy." In re D.C.V., 569 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1997) (citations omitted). Foster contends a decision by this court would have no force or effect in the declaratory judgment action because, even if a lease existed, the planting time for the 2009-10 lease year took place
1

3 correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; Lobberecht v. Chendrasekhar, 744 N.W.2d 104, 106 (Iowa 2008). Iowa Code section 562.5 provides, in relevant part: "In the case of a farm tenancy, the notice must fix the termination of the farm tenancy to take place on the first day of March . . . ." Section 562.6 provides in part that a farm tenancy that continues beyond the terms of the original lease shall terminate on March 1 if written notice is served upon either party or the partys successor as provided in section 562.7. Section 562.7 sets forth several specific procedures to be used with regard to service of notice of termination of farm tenancies (must be delivered on or before September 1, certified mail or signed acceptance, etc.). As the district court correctly noted, our supreme court has determined that the provisions of section 562.6 and 562.7 are mandatory, rather than directory. See Buss v.

Gruis, 320 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Iowa 1982) (emphasis added). In this case, there is no dispute that the manner of service of Fosters notice of termination was in compliance with section 562.7. Over the years, our supreme court has frequently addressed the effectiveness of farm tenancy termination notices; however, few cases have
in spring 2009, and the fall harvest will have been completed by the time our decision is filed. We might agree, were it not for the fact that Schwickerath may be entitled to seek supplemental relief for his lost right to possession for the 2009 crop year in the event this court determined the notice to terminate was not effective. (Schwickerath was not allowed to access the property after April 2008.) Thus, the controversy before the district court implicated more than Fosters bare right of possession to the leased premises. Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude the validity of the summary judgment ruling is "a mere abstraction"; rather it involves "real, present questions, involving actual interests and rights of the parties." Manning v. Heath, 206 Iowa 952, 954, 221 N.W. 560, 561 (1928) (citations omitted). We therefore turn to the merits of the appeal.

4 focused on the issue presented here.2 In Welch v. Keeran, 233 Iowa 499, 50205, 7 N.W.2d 809, 810-12 (1943), our supreme court addressed a similar situation to the issue presented in the instant case. In Welch, a landlord sent a letter to the tenant terminating a farm lease that stated as follows: I am sorry I cannot accommodate you by renting you my place for another year but I have had a better offer of shares of the crops raised next year, and other things considered think best to have a change. You people have had it or the use of it for a long time and I don't think you should feel hard on me if I have a change. I will have a contract to that effect for the year 1942. Hope you may find a place to suit you better. Welch, 233 Iowa at 502, 7 N.W.2d at 810. The letter was timely mailed and met the other statutory notice requirements then in effect. See Iowa Code

Download BRIAN FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS SCHWICKERATH, Defendant-Appellant..

Iowa Law