R & R Real Estate Co. v. C & N Armstrong Farms, Ltd.
Docket: No. 33A01-0507-CV-294
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; August 31, 2006; Indiana; State Appellate Court
R. R. Real Estate Company, LLC, and Leland Roberts appeal the denial of their claims for grain bin rental damages and prejudgment interest. C. N. Armstrong Farms, Ltd. cross-appeals, seeking dismissal of R. R.'s appeal under Indiana Code Section 34-56-1-2 and a setoff for costs related to repairs of grain bins and a grain auger on R. R.'s property. The court affirms the lower court's decision.
Key issues include:
1. The potential dismissal of R. R.'s appeal under the cited Indiana statute.
2. Whether R. R. should have received damages for grain bin rental.
3. Whether C. N. is entitled to a setoff for repair costs.
4. The entitlement of R. R. to prejudgment interest.
The relevant facts show that in Fall 2000, C. N. agreed to pay $92 per acre for farming 707 acres owned by R. R. and $0.10 per bushel for grain storage in R. R.'s bins, with a responsibility to maintain the bins. After a dispute regarding the signing of the federal farm subsidy enrollment form (Form 515), R. R. filed a complaint for nonpayment of the 2002 lease. C. N. counterclaimed for unjust enrichment due to repairs made on R. R.'s property and for unpaid corn deliveries.
C. N. attempted to pay R. R. several times, including a certified check for $12,500 and four checks totaling $47,179.86, which R. R. did not cash. Ultimately, R. R. received $59,679.86 during mediation in March 2004. R. R. later filed an amended complaint that included allegations of nonpayment and insufficient funds on C. N.'s checks.
The trial court's findings included that R. R. failed to mitigate damages by not negotiating tendered payments and by delaying the signing of Form 515, which affected payment schedules. It concluded that C. N. owed R. R. a total of $71,594.00, after accounting for payments already made, leaving an outstanding balance of $11,914.14.
R. R did not meet the burden of proof for Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint and will not receive any relief for these counts. Counts IV and V were already settled in prior proceedings. C. N failed to prove the equitable defenses in Counts II, III, and IV of its Answer and counterclaim. R. R owes C. N $1,741.50 under Count V, which will be set off against the judgment awarded to R. R. C. N successfully established a defense of failure to mitigate regarding R. R's claim for prejudgment interest, resulting in a judgment of $10,172.64 awarded to R. R, with interest accruing at 8% per annum.
Subsequently, C. N paid the judgment amount of $10,252.92 to the court clerk, which R. R deposited after the motion to correct error was deemed denied, leading to an appeal and cross-appeal. The standard of review for the appeal involves affirming the judgment based on any legal theory supported by findings of fact, assessing whether evidence supports those findings, and determining if the judgment is clearly erroneous.
C. N argues for the dismissal of R. R's appeal under Indiana Code Section 34-56-1-2, which prohibits appeals after a party collects on a judgment. The statute reflects the common-law principle that one cannot accept a benefit of a decision while claiming it is erroneous. However, if no inconsistency exists in the appellant's position, such as when accepting an amount they are entitled to, the general rule does not apply, allowing for the appeal to proceed.
C. N asserts it is entitled to a setoff for repairs made to grain bins and a grain auger on R. R's property, arguing that R. R's acceptance of a judgment payment does not preclude C. N from raising cross-errors to reduce the trial court’s award. C. N claims that R. R's appeal should be dismissed under Indiana Code Section 34-56-1-2, but the court disagrees, noting that no Indiana cases involve a cross-appeal from a judgment accepted by the appellant. Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court of Oregon, the court emphasizes that a cross-appeal should not allow the dismissal of the original appeal, as it could lead to manipulative tactics that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
In addressing R. R's claim for damages related to grain bin rental, the court notes that R. R alleged that C. N owed $70,583.03 for the 2002 farm year based on their agreement. However, C. N's actual obligation was $65,044. R. R presented evidence that C. N used the grain bins in 2002, but the court determined that R. R failed to adequately prove its damages, which must be established with reasonable certainty rather than conjecture. Consequently, R. R, as the appealing party from a negative judgment, must show that the trial court's damage award was clearly erroneous or contrary to law to have it overturned.
R. R failed to provide evidence of the specific number of bushels stored by C. N in 2002, rendering their damages claim speculative and unsubstantiated. C. N sought a setoff for repairing grain bins and a grain auger on R. R's property; however, while the trial court found that the parties had an agreement for C. N to maintain the bins, there was no express agreement for reimbursement. Consequently, C. N did not demonstrate clear error regarding this issue. Additionally, R. R's request for prejudgment interest was deemed inappropriate as the trial court found no unreasonable delay in payment, given the disputes between the parties. C. N was determined to owe R. R $65,044 by December 1, 2002, but did not pay until later, with various checks tendered that R. R did not cash. The court ruled that C. N's delay was justifiable, affirming its decision without finding an abuse of discretion. The trial court's order included elements from both parties but was primarily its own work.
The trial court determined that the checks in question were never presented for payment to the bank, and there was no evidence or testimony from the bank indicating that they were denied due to insufficient funds. Without proof that the checks would have been honored if presented, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish their validity. Hearsay evidence from Leland Roberts's son was noted, but no checks marked 'NSF' were introduced, nor was there bank evidence to support a claim that the checks would not have been honored. C. N attempted payment with the checks, but R. R refused to cash them, which led to continued interest accrual. R. R referenced the case of Rosenbaum Brothers v. Nowak Milling Corp. to argue that refusal to accept tendered money can excuse interest payments; however, since R. R accepted the checks but did not present them for payment, the court found this case not applicable.
