Kolkman v. Roth

656 N.W.2d 148 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Roth inherited 800 acres of farmland. Kolkman farmed the land pursuant to an oral crop-share lease. The lease term was year-to-year, with profits shared on a fifty-fifty basis. In the spring of 1996, Roth asked Kolkman if he would continue to farm the ground and raise the cattle as he did for her father. Roth and Kolkman agreed that Kolkman would continue in the farming operation. They also agreed Kolkman and his wife would reside in one of the houses on the farm rent-free. Unfortunately, this agreement and any additional terms was not reduced to writing. Kolkman and his wife moved to the farm in June 1996, and Kolkman successfully operated the farm, without incident, until 1999. During this time, Kolkman raised cattle, cultivated and harvested crops, and improved and cared for the land by fixing buildings and removing debris and manure. The farm was generally run down at the time it was inherited by Roth, and Kolkman improved its condition by performing work not typically done by a tenant farmer. In 1999 Roth sought to charge Kolkman rent for the farmhouse in which he was residing in the amount of $550 a month. Roth also proposed a written farm lease between them that would terminate in 2000. Kolkman refused to execute the written proposals, and Roth sought to terminate the tenancy. Kolkman (P) sued Roth (D) for breach of contract. P claimed the 1996 oral agreement included a term permitting him to live in the house rent free and remain the tenant on a fifty-fifty basis until he 'retired or couldn't work anymore.' P claimed he relied on this promise in several ways, including selling his former residence and moving to the farm, purchasing various farm equipment, and improving the land by making repairs and removing debris.