Mart v. Mart

824 N.W.2d 535 (2012)

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

George Mart previously owned the leased property, 240 acres of farmland. Ps and Mike (D) are the children of George. On March 30, 1987, 8.7 acres were determined to be 'converted wetland' by the USDA. On March 14, 1988, George received the 'Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Determination,' which stated, 'Drainage of Wetlands in Fields 2, 3 and planting to commodity crops would constitute a violation of Swampbuster.' On November 30, 1998, George leased the farmland to Mike for '$85.00 per acre for tillable acres as determined by Government survey.' The lease was to end on February 28, 2018. The lease also provided for participation of this farm in any offered program by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or any state or crop production control or soil conservation, the observance of the terms and conditions of this program, and the division of farm program payments require Landlord's consent. D was to comply with all terms of the conservation plan and any other required environmental plans for the leased premises. Section twelve of the lease allowed either tenant or landlord to 'pursue the legal and equitable remedies' if the other violated the terms of the lease. George died in 1999. The property passed to his four children as joint tenants in common. D continued to farm the property. Mike was aware of the wetland designation since 1987 and the 8.7 acres of wetland were left in alfalfa and not farmed until the 2008 crop year when Mike tilled it and planted corn. D informed the USDA office that he had planted corn on the wetland, and the Dickinson County Farm Service Agency (FSA) found D's actions violated the Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) stated there had been a violation. D appealed. Letters from the FSA dated February 17, 2009, were sent to each of the siblings informing them the wetlands determination was correct and informed them of appeal options. D restored the wetlands for the 2009 crop year. In April 2009, Ps received notice from the FSA that the violation of Swampbuster made them ineligible to receive USDA benefits. Ps were directed to refund $152,093.38 in 2008 government farm payments and loans. They were directed to refund the 2008 CRP payment he had received in the amount of $385 and advised they would be ineligible for USDA program benefits for all subsequent program years until the wetland was restored. Ps appealed. The FSA 'determined Good Faith on your behalf and the Landlord Exemption' applied and the 2008 benefits were reinstated. Ps were each required to ensure future compliance. On August 31, 2009, D received a notice to quit and vacate the farmland on or before March 1, 2010 for failing to comply with the terms of the conservation plan and other required environmental plans for the real estate; by failing to maintain waterways and drainage areas, and by failing to abstain from practices which damaged the real estate. Ps filed a petition for forcible entry and detainer (FED). The court rejected the contention that the undisputed Swampbuster violation constituted a violation of the farm lease. Ps appealed.