Case Turns on Credibility of Handwriting Expert in Case Involving Loan For Feeder Pig Operation

August 5, 2009 | Erin Herbold

In Iowa, if an agreement is said to be signed by an adverse party in a legal proceeding, that signature is deemed to be genuine unless the adverse party can support their denial of the signature’s authenticity with credible evidence. In that event, the burden shifts to the party claiming the signature is a fake to demonstrate its validity. In the event that a handwriting expert is called in to examine the signature, it is up to the trial court to determine their credibility. This analysis is particularly important in the case of a promissory note or check. 

Here, a feeder pig operator failed to pay his private lender over several years. When the debtor lost his financing for his operations in 1997, he secured new funds from a private individual lender. The debtor was able to make some, but not all, payments on the debt and the lender continued to lend him more cash. But, by 2002, the lender became dissatisfied with the sporadic payments from the debtor, and asked his attorney to prepare a promissory note for the full amount due, plus interest, of nearly $16,000. The note was dated September 1, 2002, and provided that payment was due on the demand of the lender. 

The lender testified that the parties met and the debtor signed the promissory note and issued a check for the full amount to the lender. However, the debtor maintained that he never met with the lender and the signature on the promissory note was not his. Further, the debtor claimed that the check was issued merely to appease the lender and avoid conflict, not to pay the debt. 

The lender filed suit, claiming that they were owed the full amount of the promissory note, plus attorney’s fees and court costs. Though the debtor produced a handwriting expert who testified that the signature on the promissory note was not authentic, the trial court found in favor of the lender and ordered the debtor to pay (the court found the debtor’s signature was genuine). 

The debtor appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals stating that the trial court had unreasonably deemed their handwriting expert’s analysis not credible evidence. In response, the appellate court stated that it is within the trial court’s discretion to ascertain a witness’s credibility.  In this case, the trial court found the lender’s witnesses to be more credible that the debtor’s. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was correct. 

Since the Iowa Code allows a prevailing party to collect attorney’s fees, the appellate court determined that the lender was entitled to the payment of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs for his trouble in collecting after the bad check was issued.  Oehlert v. Campbell, No. 9-285/08-1450, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 709 (Iowa Ct. App., Jul. 22, 2009)