Opinion
No. 1-779 / 00-1763.
Filed February 6, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, WILLIAM PATTINSON, Judge.
Stanley Russell appeals the district court's order dismissing his petition to quiet title. AFFIRMED.
Jane Kopp Morris of Legal Aid Society of Story County, Nevada, for appellant.
Thomas J. Cahill of Cahill Law Offices, Nevada, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
This appeal involves a family land transaction gone awry. Stanley Russell and his long-term companion, Karen, moved into a trailer on a lot owned by Joel Rasmussen, Karen's brother. Russell sought to purchase a portion of the lot. He made a down payment and regular monthly payments that varied in amount. After making what he believed was the final payment on the property, he sought a deed from Rasmussen. Rasmussen declined to give him one.
Russell brought a quiet title action, alleging the parties had an oral contract for the sale of the property and further alleging he had complied with its terms. Rasmussen's answer admitted the existence of the oral contract but denied the terms and satisfaction of the terms. Following trial, the district court ruled in favor of Rasmussen and dismissed the quiet title action. Russell appeals. Our review is de novo. Fencl v. City of Harpers Ferry, 620 N.W.2d 808, 811 (Iowa 2000).
A party seeking to quiet title must "show a title as will overcome the presumption of ownership arising out of a record title held" by the party against whom the claim is made. Mack v. Linge, 254 Iowa 963, 969, 119 N.W.2d 897, 900 (1963). Where the quiet title action is based on an oral contract, evidence of that contract "must be so cogent, clear and forcible as to leave no reasonable doubt" as to its terms and character. Id.
As noted, Rasmussen's answer admitted the existence of an oral contract. Therefore, notwithstanding Rasmussen's equivocal trial testimony on this issue, he is bound by his pre-trial admission. See Welter v. Heer, 181 N.W.2d 134, 136 (Iowa 1970); Carlson v. Vondrak, 555 N.W.2d 238, 241 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that Russell cannot obtain title because he failed to prove the terms of the contract. See Seastrom v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 601 N.W.2d 339, 346 (Iowa 1999) (the terms of an oral contract must be sufficiently definite for a court to determine with certainty the duty of each party and the conditions relative to performance); Lindsley v. Anderson, 383 N.W.2d 530, 532 (Iowa 1986) (noting plaintiff's evidence of oral land sale contract was notable for its lack of details). The parties disagreed on the actual purchase price, the installment payment amounts prescribed by the contract and the number of payments required. Cf. Krotz v. Sattler, 586 N.W.2d 336, 340 (Iowa 1998) (noting parties' original contract failed to identify a time for performance or expiration of the agreement). Therefore, Russell is unable to eliminate the reasonable doubt surrounding these material terms of the contract. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the quiet title action. AFFIRMED.
In reaching this conclusion we express no view on any rights Russell might have to recover damages or other equitable relief under the contract.