Daniel Everette Olean, Appellant, v. Moose Lake CO-OPerative Ass’n, Respondent., No. A18-1328, 2019 WL 1757936 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2019)
In June 2015, Olean made a $3,553.77 purchase of fertilizer and glysophate from CO-OP using his credit account. As part of the purchase, CO-OP offered Olean the use of a fertilizer spreader at no additional cost. Olean used CO-OP’s spreader to fertilize five separate corn fields, totaling approximately 83 acres.
Later that summer, Olean noticed an uneven growth pattern in the five fields that he had fertilized with the borrowed spreader. Olean contacted CO-OP and made a claim to his crop insurer. In mid-October 2015, a certified independent insurance adjuster inspected Olean’s fields. In his report, the adjuster noted uneven growth patterns in 30 acres of corn, which he attributed to fertilizer-spreading issues. For purposes of Olean’s insurance claim, the adjuster calculated the financial impact of the unevenly fertilized portions of Olean’s fields and determined that the total loss was $4,251.67.
In February 2016, Olean brought an action in conciliation court against CO-OP, alleging that the spreader malfunctioned and caused crop damage. Olean sought $7,676.67 in damages plus costs. CO-OP asserted a counterclaim for nonpayment of Olean’s credit account and sought damages of $4,022.32 plus costs. In April 2016, the conciliation court awarded Olean judgment against CO-OP in the amount of $4,251.67. It also awarded CO-OP judgment against Olean in the amount of $620.
CO-OP removed the case to district court pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 521, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and seeking damages of $4,154.68 plus interest. Olean sought $23,237.10 in damages, an amount he argued was based on his projected yield goal of 130 bushels of corn per acre.
Appellant Daniel Everette Olean challenges the district court’s calculation of his damages and its judgment in favor of respondent Moose Lake CO-OPerative Association (CO-OP) on CO-OP’s breach-of-contract counterclaim. Court affirms.
Himsel v. Himsel, No. 18A-PL-645, 2019 WL 1758411 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2019); Martin Richard Himsel, Janet L. Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, and Susan M. Lannon (collectively, the Plaintiffs) filed a complaint, alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, against Samuel T. Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP (collectively, the Defendants). Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the concentrated animal feedingoperation (CAFO) placed on 4/9 Livestock’s property in 2013 created noxious odors that are so extreme as to greatly diminish the Plaintiffs’ quality of life, reduce their property values, and alter their daily activities. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9, which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind. Code § 15-11-2-6(a), which requires the Indiana Code to be construed to “protect the rights of farmers to choose among all generally accepted farming and livestock production practices, including the use of ever changing technology.”
The Court held that the Plaintiffs’ nuisance and repackaged negligence and trespass claims are barred by the RTFA. Further, the Plaintiffs’ various claims that the RTFA was unconstitutional are unavailing, and the court did not reach the question of the constitutionality of the Agricultural Canon due to judicial restraint. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims, so the finding was affirmed.
In Re: PATRICIA MARLAINA REID, Debtor. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA MARLAINA REID, Defendant., No. 18-1629-JCO, 2019 WL 1771513 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. Apr. 18, 2019)
This matter came before the Court for a trial on April 8, 2019, on the Complaint filed by the United States of America on behalf of its agency, the United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (hereinafter referred to as “the USA” or “FSA”) against Chapter 7 Debtor and Defendant, Patricia Marlaina Reid.
The Court ruled against FSA, and that the debts were dischargeable.