A-21-823, Cofer (appellant) v. Miller
Lincoln County District Court, Judge Michael E. Piccolo
Attorney for Appellant: Timothy P. Brouillette (Brouillette, Dugan, Troshynski & Bellew, P.C., LLO)
Attorney for Appellee: Lindsay E. Pedersen (Lindsay E. Pedersen, Attorney at Law, PC, LLO)
Civil Action: Damages for Breach of Contract, Replevin, and Conversion
Action Taken by Trial Court: The Cofers entered into a lease agreement in 1997 with the Millers, wherein the Millers leased certain cattle, pasture, and cropland from the Cofers. The parties ended their lease agreement at the end of 2019, and the Cofers subsequently filed a complaint against the Millers for breach of contract and replevin; the replevin action related to a pivot engine on the leased cropland. The Lincoln County District Court found that the Cofers’ complaint sufficiently raised both a replevin and a conversion action regarding the pivot engine. Following a bench trial, the district court entered a net judgment of $14,679.49 in favor of the Cofers on the breach of contract action but found that their replevin and conversion actions were time-barred by the statute of limitations.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: The Cofers assign that the district court erred in (1) determining that the number of cows returned to them by the Millers was 103 (rather than 93) out of the 117 under the lease, (2) determining the amount of pasture rent the Millers were entitled to as a setoff against the Cofers’ judgment, (3) determining that the Millers were entitled to a setoff against the Cofers’ judgment for the Millers’ future unborn calf-crop and the value thereof, (4) determining that the Millers were entitled to a calf-crop setoff when it also imposed a pasture rent and salt and mineral setoff for the Cofers’ 11 pregnant heifers, (5) applying the written and oral agreements to the facts and damages/setoff claimed by both parties, and (6) determining that the statute of limitations barred the Cofers from recovering the pivot engine or its equivalent value.
On cross-appeal, the Millers assign that the district court erred (1) in finding that they returned less than 131 cross-bred stock cattle with the Cofers’ brand pursuant to the 1997 written lease, (2) in the alternative, by not finding a modification of the 1997 written lease with regard to the number of cows to be returned to the Cofers at the termination of the lease, (3) in finding that the cows were required to be bred when returned to the Cofers at the termination of the lease; and (4) by not finding that the Cofers were estopped from claiming damages for the reduced number of head.