GOLDEN FURROW FERTILIZER, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-068 / 07-0518
Filed February 27, 2008
GOLDEN FURROW FERTILIZER, INC.,
an Iowa Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Annette J.
Scieszinski, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the adverse judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of
contract action. AFFIRMED.
Michael Baker, Ogallala, Nebraska, pro se.
Allen L. Cook III of Harrison, Moreland, Webber & Woods, P.C., Ottumwa,
for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
The appellee, Golden Furrow Fertilizers, Inc., filed the present action
against the appellant, Michael Baker, claiming Baker failed to pay for products
and services related to the application of chemicals to his fields in 2005. Baker
raised seven counterclaims contending Golden Furrow’s improper application of
farm chemicals in 2004 and 2005 reduced his crop yields. The district court
entered judgment in favor of Golden Furrow, dismissing all but one of Baker’s
counterclaims for damages.
The damages related to the sole surviving
counterclaim were used to offset a small portion of the damages awarded to
Golden Furrow.
Baker now appeals, contending the judgment should be reversed because
Golden Furrow’s witnesses gave inconsistent testimony. Baker also contends
the court erred in denying his remaining claims for breach of contract.
We review breach of contract cases for the correction of errors at law.
East Broadway Corp. v. Taco Bell Corp., 542 N.W.2d 816, 819 (Iowa 1996). The
court’s findings of fact are binding on appeal if they are supported by substantial
evidence. Hartzler v. Town of Kalona, 218 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Iowa 1974).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, we conclude the district
court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, we find the
testimonial inconsistencies alleged on appeal were either nonexistent or
insubstantial and irrelevant to the issues at hand. We also find no error in the
court’s decision to deny Baker’s remaining counterclaims. Accordingly, we affirm
the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
