Justia Agriculture Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Aerie Point Holdings, LLC (Aerie Point) and Vorsteveld Farm, LLC (Vorsteveld). Aerie Point owns a property in Panton, Vermont, which is located downhill from Vorsteveld's dairy farm. In 2017, Vorsteveld began installing tile drains in its fields to improve soil quality. The excess water drained from these tiles was discharged into public ditches, then through culverts, and finally towards Lake Champlain over Aerie Point’s property. This led to increased water flow, sediment, and contaminants on Aerie Point's land, causing shoreline erosion and algae blooms in Lake Champlain. In April 2020, Aerie Point filed a lawsuit against Vorsteveld for trespass and nuisance.The civil division found in favor of Aerie Point in March 2022, concluding that Vorsteveld's actions constituted trespass and nuisance. The court issued an injunction in August 2022, preventing Vorsteveld from allowing water from its drain tile system to flow into the public ditches and culverts on Arnold Bay Road. Vorsteveld did not appeal this judgment.In August 2023, Vorsteveld moved for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6), arguing that postjudgment changes in fact and law justified relief from the injunction. Vorsteveld claimed that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation regarding filled wetlands on the farm prevented it from complying with the injunction, and that the federal investigation/enforcement action preempted the state injunction. Vorsteveld also argued that changes to Vermont’s Right-to-Farm law justified relief from the injunction. The court denied the motion and the request for an evidentiary hearing.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Vorsteveld's arguments were attempts to relitigate issues that had been resolved by the judgment. The court also found that Vorsteveld had not demonstrated that there were significant postjudgment changes in factual circumstances or the law that made prospective application of the injunction inequitable. The court concluded that Vorsteveld's arguments relating to the EPA investigation and changes to the Right-to-Farm law were insufficient to merit relief under Rule 60(b). The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vorsteveld's request for an evidentiary hearing. View "Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC" on Justia Law

Patricia Lee, a debtor, defaulted on her mortgage held by U.S. Bank on a 43-acre property in Georgia, which she used as her principal residence and also leased to a farming company. In an attempt to restructure her debts, Lee filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. She proposed a reorganization plan that included payments to U.S. Bank. However, U.S. Bank moved for relief from the automatic stay that had been triggered by Lee's bankruptcy filing, arguing that the anti-modification provision in Chapter 11 prevented the bankruptcy court from approving a plan that modified U.S. Bank's claim.The bankruptcy court agreed with U.S. Bank, concluding that the anti-modification provision applied because the property was Lee's principal residence, regardless of its additional use as farmland. The court granted U.S. Bank's motion for relief from the automatic stay, effectively allowing the bank to foreclose on Lee's property. Lee appealed this decision to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The appellate court held that the anti-modification provision in Chapter 11 has three requirements: the security interest must be in real property; the real property must be the only security for the debt; and the real property must be the debtor's principal residence. The court found that all three requirements were met in this case, as U.S. Bank's claim was secured by Lee's real property, which was the only security for the debt and was used by Lee as her principal residence. The court rejected Lee's argument that the property's additional use as farmland should exempt it from the anti-modification provision. View "Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC (Simple Avo), an avocado farm, and Southern California Edison Company (SCE), a utility company. Simple Avo claimed that SCE was responsible for damages caused by the 2017 Thomas Fire in Southern California due to SCE's alleged negligence in maintaining its electrical infrastructure. The case was part of a larger coordinated proceeding involving hundreds of similar lawsuits against SCE.Before Simple Avo filed its lawsuit, the trial court had overruled SCE's demurrer to the cause of action for inverse condemnation in the master complaints filed by each of the plaintiff groups. Simple Avo did not participate in the briefing or argument on SCE’s demurrer before the trial court. Instead, Simple Avo and SCE settled for an undisclosed amount and entered into a stipulated judgment whereby SCE would pay $1.75 million to Simple Avo on the inverse condemnation claim, subject to SCE’s appeal of the demurrer ruling.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the stipulated judgment was appealable and justiciable, and that the trial court correctly overruled the demurrer. The court found that SCE could be liable for inverse condemnation as a public entity, and that the master complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for inverse condemnation. View "Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC v. Southern Cal. Edison Co." on Justia Law

The case involves MRose Development Co., LLC and Jason Schumacher (MRose) who sought to develop farmland located along Swan Lake in Turner County into 15 lakefront lots. The land was currently included in an agricultural zoning district, and due to residential density restrictions, MRose applied to rezone the land into a lake residential district. The Turner County Board of County Commissioners (the County) denied the application, and MRose appealed to the circuit court.The circuit court reversed the County's decision, interpreting Turner County's zoning ordinance to require approval of the rezoning application as a purely ministerial act because the land was situated along Swan Lake. The County appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance, which it believed required the County to approve MRose's rezoning application. The Supreme Court held that no provision in the entire 2008 Zoning Ordinance stated that lakefront property must be zoned Lake Residential simply by virtue of its location. The court also held that the County's decision to deny MRose's rezoning application was not arbitrary, as MRose failed to meet its burden of proof that the County acted arbitrarily. View "Mrose Development Co. v. Turner County Bd. Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance.The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law

An elderly woman, Janice Geerdes, and her long-time friend, Albert Gomez Cruz, had a partnership raising hogs on a piece of land. Initially, Janice deeded half of her interest in the land to Albert. Over a decade later, she deeded the rest of her interest in the land to Albert, receiving nothing in return. About six months later, Janice’s adult daughters were appointed her conservator and guardian. The conservator challenged the validity of the quitclaim deed based on undue influence and lack of capacity.The district court set aside the deed, finding that there was undue influence through a confidential relationship and that Janice lacked the necessary capacity to deed her interest in the land. The court of appeals affirmed the decision on the basis of lack of capacity.The Supreme Court of Iowa, however, disagreed with the lower courts. The Supreme Court found that the conservator did not establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that there was undue influence or that Janice lacked capacity at the time of the gift. The court found that the lower courts gave too much weight to the perceived improvidence of the transaction and too little weight to the testimony of the third-party accountant who witnessed the transaction. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the district court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Conservatorship of Janice Geerdes v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Bader Farms, Inc. sued Monsanto Company and BASF Corporation, alleging that its peach orchards were damaged by dicamba drift between 2015 and 2019 due to the defendants' negligent design and failure to warn. The jury awarded $250 million in punitive damages against both Monsanto and BASF based on Monsanto’s acts in 2015-16, which the district court later reduced to $60 million. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision except for punitive damages, holding BASF and Monsanto liable as co-conspirators in a civil conspiracy. The court remanded the case to separately assess punitive damages against Monsanto and BASF. However, before the new trial, Monsanto settled with Bader Farms. The district court did not conduct a new trial and instead ruled that BASF could not be liable for any punitive damages, dismissing all claims against BASF.Bader Farms appealed, arguing that the district court ignored the appellate court’s mandate and its holding that BASF could be assessed punitive damages for its acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. The appellate court reviewed the district court’s interpretation of its mandate de novo and found that the district court did not comply with the appellate mandate. The appellate court held that BASF is vicariously liable for Monsanto’s actions and remanded the case for a trier of fact to apportion the punitive damages award. The court reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to hold a new trial on the single issue of punitive damages. View "Bader Farms, Inc. v. BASF Corporation" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Good River Farms and Martin Marietta Materials and TXI Operations, who own land directly across from each other along the Colorado River. In 2015, a "120-year flood" event occurred near Austin, Texas, causing severe damage to Good River's pecan farm. Good River claimed that Martin Marietta's strip mining activities resulted in a large pit filled with groundwater that breached and released a deluge of impounded surface water onto their property. Following a jury trial, Good River was awarded $659,882.00 in damages, prevailing on claims for violations of Texas Water Code § 11.086 and for negligence. Martin Marietta appealed the decision.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The jury rejected Good River's nuisance claims but found in favor of Good River on the issues of water diversion and negligence. The trial court entered final judgment on that verdict, awarding Good River $659,882.00 in damages. Martin Marietta filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), which the trial court denied.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions that Martin Marietta violated Texas Water Code § 11.086 and committed common law negligence. The court noted that the jury verdict demands deference and that the unique factual scenario presented in this case supported the jury's conclusions. View "Good River Farms v. TXI Operations" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute within the Hora family over the operation of their family farm, Hora Farms, Inc. (HFI). Two brothers, Brian and Gregg Hora, brought a derivative action as minority shareholders against their father, Keith Hora, and brother, Kurt Hora, alleging breach of fiduciary duties based on their management of the farming operation. The brothers claimed that Keith and Kurt mismanaged the farm's operations, resulting in financial losses and unaccounted-for corn inventory. They also alleged that Keith used HFI's credit card for personal expenses.The case was initially heard in the Iowa District Court, where it was determined that neither Keith nor Kurt breached fiduciary duties owed to the corporation. The court found that the brothers' concerns were primarily related to poor recordkeeping and longstanding business practices, rather than intentional wrongdoing. The court also concluded that Keith's use of the corporate credit card for personal expenses was part of his compensation and was fair to HFI.The brothers appealed the decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision on two specific issues. The appellate court concluded that Keith engaged in self-dealing by using HFI's credit card for personal expenses and that he enabled Kurt to misappropriate corn from the farm. The court also found that Kurt breached his duty to HFI by misappropriating corn for his personal use.The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of Iowa. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Supreme Court found that Kurt, as an employee and not an officer or director of HFI, did not owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. The court also concluded that Keith did not violate any fiduciary duties owed to HFI in his oversight of Kurt. The court determined that the brothers failed to prove that Keith or Kurt violated fiduciary duties owed to HFI. View "Hora v. Hora" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a grain producer, Robert Miller, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture over compensation from the Illinois Grain Insurance Fund. The fund is intended to compensate grain producers for losses incurred when a licensed grain dealer or a licensed warehouseman fails. Miller made a claim with the Department after his grain dealer, SGI Agri-Marketing, LLC, failed before making payment under a “price later contract.”A key issue in the case was the interpretation of the Grain Code's provision concerning the pricing of grain under a “price later contract.” According to the Code, if such a contract is not signed by all parties within 30 days of the last date of delivery of grain intended to be sold by the contract, then the grain is automatically priced on the next business day after those 30 days, at the market price of the grain at the close of that day.Miller argued that the grain was priced when he signed a purchase confirmation, which was within the 160-day window before the failure of the dealer, thus entitling him to compensation from the fund. The Department contended that the Grain Code automatically priced the grain as a matter of law on the next business day after 30 days from the last grain delivery, as the parties had not signed a contract agreeing to a pricing formula by then.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois agreed with the Department’s interpretation. It held that the statute was unambiguous and provided that the grain would be priced as a matter of law on the next business day after 30 days from the last delivery. Therefore, because the grain was priced outside the 160-day protection window prescribed by the Grain Code, Miller was not eligible for compensation from the fund. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and reversed the appellate court's judgment. View "Miller v. Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law