A landowner signed a contract with a logger to cut down mature trees on his property. The landowner owned some of the property outright, but on some of the property the landowner owned it as a co-tenant with his four children. The logging contract specified that the landowner would receive 60% of the profits from most of the trees and the logger would receive 40%. For walnut trees, however, the owner would receive 65 percent and the logger 35 percent. Further, the agreement provided that the owner’s children would receive 5 percent of the owner’s proceeds. The owner intended the money from the sale of timber would help pay for nursing home costs.
After the contract was signed, the logger moved equipment to the property. He was promptly asked to vacate the premises by the owner’s son and did move his equipment. Some months later, the logger heard that the owner and his children were taking out bids for logging on the property. The logger did not submit a bid and the owner and another logger got the job.
The initial logger sued for breach of contract in 2009. The landowner filed a counterclaim alleging that the logger trespassed on his property by bringing in his equipment. The trial court held that the father had no authority to enter into a logging agreement as to the parcels in which his children had an ownership interest. As to the 40 acres, the father owned outright, the logger was allowed to proceed. At this point, the parties settled the remaining claims.
The logger appealed the trial court’s ruling finding the father had no right to contract with the logger on the property he was cotenant on. Generally, a cotenant cannot bind other cotenants by contracts with third persons or transfer or dispose of the interest of another cotenant in such a manner as to be binding on that cotenant. The logger was unable to present any evidence that the father had the authority to enter into such agreements that would bind his children.
The logger also raised the argument that logging contracts do not require the assent of cotenants. He argued that he could only be liable to his children if he sold more than his proportionate share of the logs. The court quickly dismissed this argument and stuck to the general principle that “a cotenant may not sever timber from the land without the consent of the other cotenants.” Lessard v. Duane Henry, No. 1-530/10-1920, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 742 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 27, 2011).