No. 4-425 / 03-2058.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lyon County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered on his action seeking to recover for the breach of an oral contract.AFFIRMED.
Brian McPhail of Gross McPhail, Osage, for appellants.
James Haberkorn of Austin, Haberkorn Kippley, Rock Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
HECHT, J.
Harvey Hanson and his wife own Double H. Livestock, which is in the business of livestock transportation. Larry Gathman does business under the name of Rock Rapids Trailer Sales, which buys and sells semi trailers. In 2000, Double H. Livestock and Hanson filed suit against Gathman, d/b/a Rock Rapids Trailer Sales, seeking damages arising from the alleged sale of a 1978 Wilson livestock trailer. Gathman denied that a contract was formed between the parties. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding the facts supported Gathman’s assertion that the alleged sale never occurred. Hanson and Double H. Livestock appeal.
This case was tried at law, and we review for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. The trial court’s findings of fact have the effect of a special verdict and are binding upon us if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(a). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Van Oort Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nuckoll’s Concrete Serv., Inc., 599 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1999).
In finding in favor of Gathman, the district court reasoned:
All physical evidence before the court relative to the alleged sale of the 1978 trailer is contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions and consistent with Defendant’s testimony. Plaintiff Double H. Livestock, Inc., retained title to the trailer, continued to list it on depreciation schedules through the year 2000, and did not report the sale on its 1997 income tax return. Each of these factors fully supports Defendant’s assertion that the sale never occurred.
As the burden of proof in this matter rests with Plaintiffs and all of the evidence supports Defendant’s contentions and not Plaintiffs’, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof.
When viewed in a light most favorable to the court’s judgment, we conclude substantial evidence supports its findings and conclusions. No written documentation of the claimed contract exists. The district court was free to accept Gathman’s version of the facts and to reject that advanced by Double H. Livestock. Guided by our standard of review, we therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.