855 N.W.2d 201
Iowa Ct. App.2014Background
- Family farmland dispute in Sac County between Douglas and Lavola Stenoien and their children (Sheryl and Gwendolyn) vs Gary Stenoien, Lorri Ann Stenoien (Lorri Reinke), and Tammy Swanson.
- Douglas sold 226 acres to the Johnsons in 1998 with a repurchase option to Douglas’s family at 1998 prices plus 10% through July 28, 2003, with an understanding all children would eventually own in equal shares.
- July 28, 2003 agreement extended the option; the family planned to exercise repurchase through Sheryl and Gary for the benefit of all children.
- January 2004, Sheryl signed a mortgage securing a loan; Gary and Lorri signed the loan documents; the 226 acres were transferred to Gary on January 20, 2004.
- By 2011–2012, tensions rose as Gary treated the land as his own, a lien was partially released by Farm Credit Services without Sheryl’s notice, and in September 2012 plaintiffs filed a petition seeking equitable enforcement of the oral agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment, ruling the claims barred by the statute of frauds and five-year statute of limitations; appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-year statute of limitations bars the oral-family-agreement claim | Stenoien plaintiffs argue anticipatory breach tolled the limit. | Stenoien defendants contend breach accrued when deed was recorded in 2004. | No; anticipatory breach tolls; not time-barred on summary judgment. |
| Whether the oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds | Part performance or promissory estoppel takes the agreement outside the statute. | Oral agreement regarding land typically barred; exceptions require clear facts. | Not barred as a matter of law; issues exist for part performance and estoppel. |
| Whether part performance exists to remove the contract from the statute of frauds | Acts like exercising the option, Sheryl’s lien, and rent application show part performance. | No undisputed evidence of exclusive, unequivocal part performance. | Genuine issue of material fact on part performance precludes summary judgment. |
| Whether promissory estoppel/equitable estoppel defeats the statute of frauds | Equitable estoppel applies to enforce oral land contracts. | Promissory estoppel requires strict elements; no such proof here. | Promissory/Equitable estoppel not proven; statute of frauds applicable, but issues remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. Minnesota Protective Life Ins. Co., 314 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1982) (ant anticipatory breach informs accrual timing; five-year limit may not have run.)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 454 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1990) (part performance as a basis to avoid the statute of frauds.)
- Kolkman v. Roth, 656 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 2003) (promissory estoppel can remove oral real estate contracts from the statute of frauds.)
- Pollmann v. Belle Plaine Livestock Auction, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1997) (statute of frauds not voided by oral contracts; exceptions require performance or estoppel.)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 454 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1990) ((part performance) recognized as an exception to the statute.)
- Tri-States Inv. Co. v. Henryson, 179 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 1970) (indicates need for certain terms in option agreements; lack of essential terms.)