Opinion ID: 1706945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedure employed by Longfellow to enforce the fence agreement. The fence agreement between Longfellow and Sayler provides:

Text: should either party bring all of their portion of the fence to a tight fence condition as defined by Section 113.20 of the 1977 Code of Iowa, that the other party hereto shall bring all of their portion of such fence to such tight fence condition within ninety days. Under the doctrine of incorporation, an extrinsic document becomes part of the contract by reference to that document in the contract. Hofmeyer v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 640 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Iowa 2001). The doctrine of incorporation requires the contract to make a clear and specific reference to an extrinsic document to incorporate the document into the contract. In re Estate of Kokjohn ( Kokjohn v. Harrington), 531 N.W.2d 99, 100-01 (Iowa 1995). Whether a contract incorporates extrinsic material presents a question of law. Hofmeyer, 640 N.W.2d at 228. Statutes and administrative rules can become part of a contract under the doctrine of incorporation. See id. at 229 (holding an administrative rule referred to in the contract became part of the contract under the doctrine of incorporation); 11 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 30:19, at 202 (4th ed.1999) [hereinafter Williston on Contracts ] (stating [w]hen a contract expressly incorporates a statutory enactment by reference, that enactment becomes part of a contract for the indicated purposes just as though the words of that enactment were set out in full in the contract.). Here, the fence agreement contained a clear and specific reference to section 113.20 of the 1977 Iowa Code. This incorporation created a requirement on both parties to bring each party's portion of the partition fence to a tight fence condition as defined by section 113.20. The statutory requirements explicitly set forth in subsections 113.20(1) and (2) require the fence to be partially made of woven wire. See Iowa Code § 113.20(1), (2) (stating [a]ll tight partition fences shall consist of: (1) . . . substantial woven wire . . . [or] (2)[g]ood substantial woven wire. . . . ). Sayler admits his fence was made only of barbed wire and did not contain woven wire. Therefore, the Sayler fence did not meet the specific statutory requirements contained in subsections 113.20(1) and (2). Accordingly, the Sayler fence can only comply with the agreement by meeting the statutory definition of a tight fence contained in subsection 113.20(3). Subsection 113.20(3) requires the fence viewers to view the partition fence and determine whether Sayler's portion of the fence is an equivalent tight fence. See id. § 113.20(3) (stating [a]ll tight partition fences shall consist of: . . . (3)[a]ny other kind of a tight partition fence which, in the opinion of the fence viewers, is equivalent thereto). Longfellow requested the trustees, acting as fence viewers, to determine the fence controversy. The fence viewers visited the partition fence, viewed it, and determined the Sayler portion of the fence was lawful and tight. B. The effect of using the fence viewers to determine the dispute. The district court decided in favor of Sayler finding the fence viewers' determination that the Sayler fence was lawful and tight satisfied any obligation Sayler had regarding his portion of the fence under the agreement. We disagree. Under chapter 359A, when there is no written agreement, a party's appeal to the district court of the fence viewers' decision requires a trial as in any other case. Iowa Code § 359A.23. Accordingly, the appeal of a fence viewers' decision is triable at law. Laughlin v. Franc, 247 Iowa 345, 347, 73 N.W.2d 750, 751 (1955). Either party has the right to demand a trial by jury. Moore, 227 Iowa at 381, 288 N.W. at 408. As in all civil trials, the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence apply. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.101; Iowa R. Evid. 5.101. When a party requests the fence viewers to settle a dispute under an agreement, the decision of the fence viewers is appealable, just as any other decision of the fence viewers. See Huber v. Wilkinson, 46 Iowa 458, 459 (1877). In Huber, the plaintiff claimed he entered an agreement with his neighbor requiring his neighbor to build and maintain a fence capable of turning sheep and swine. Id. Instead of bringing an action in district court to enforce the agreement, the plaintiff first asked the fence viewers to decide the dispute. Id. The fence viewers found in favor of the plaintiff. Id. On appeal to the district court, the dispute was settled by a trial anew, rather than by enforcement of the fence viewers' decision. Id. at 459-60. On appeal to this court, we affirmed the district court's judgment to enforce the agreement. Id. at 460. The fence viewers' decision is appealable in this case because the provisions and procedures of chapter 359A were incorporated into the parties' agreement. See Miller v. Marshall County, 641 N.W.2d 742, 751 (Iowa 2002) (stating there is a presumption that applicable statutes are incorporated into parties' contracts); Williston on Contracts, at 203 (stating the incorporation of applicable existing law into a contract does not require a deliberate expression by the parties). This procedure is consistent with the legislative scheme enacted regarding the use of fence viewers to settle disputes. See Iowa Code § 359A.23; Laughlin, 247 Iowa at 347, 73 N.W.2d at 751. In a trial held on an appeal from a fence viewers' decision the finder of fact is required to determine anew any issues generated regarding the division, construction, repair, or maintenance of the fence in question. Volz, at 347. If the fence viewers can find a fence to be equivalent to a tight fence under subsection 113.20(3), the finder of fact is required to determine whether the fence is equivalent to a tight fence at the district court trial. It is illogical to assume the legislature would make the decision of the fence viewers binding if a party requests the fence viewers to settle a dispute under a written agreement, but non-binding when a party requests the fence viewers to settle a dispute when there is no written agreement. In this case, the district court found [t]he fence viewers determined that the 5-strand barbed-wire fence was both `lawful' and `tight.' Thus, the fence complies with the clear language of the agreement. Clearly, the district court found in favor of Sayler without making independent factual findings about the fence and merely accepted as binding the findings of the fence viewers. We find this was error. On an appeal of a fence viewers' decision, the district court is required to make its own factual findings regarding the division, construction, repair, or maintenance of the fence in question. Accordingly, the district court should not have relied on the fence viewers to be the ultimate arbitrators of this partition fence dispute. C. Admissibility of the fence viewers' decision. It has long been the law of this state that in an appeal of a fence viewers' decision, their decision is not admissible at trial in the district court. Smith v. Ellyson, 137 Iowa 391, 394, 115 N.W. 40, 41 (1908). The reason for this rule is to allow the finder of fact to determine the dispute solely based on the evidence admitted at trial. Therefore, the district court erred in admitting the decision of the fence viewers into evidence and treating it as the final decision settling the dispute between the parties. D. Whether the evidence supports the district court's finding that the Sayler fence complied with the terms of the fence agreement. The district court has the duty to determine the facts based on the evidence admitted at trial. Therefore, we must determine whether substantial evidence supports these findings. The fence agreement incorporated section 113.20's definition of a tight fence into the agreement. The 1977 Code distinguishes a tight fence from a lawful fence. To qualify as a lawful fence under the 1977 Code, the fence is only required to have rails, boards, or wire fastened between the fence posts. Iowa Code § 113.18. On the other hand, the 1977 Code requires a tight fence to have substantial woven wire and barbed wire between the posts. Id. § 113.20. The difference between a tight fence and a lawful fence under the 1977 Code is that a tight fence contains a physical barrier of woven wire whereas a lawful fence does not. The 1977 Code also provides that any other fence determined to be equivalent to a tight fence can qualify under the statutory definition of a tight fence. Id. § 113.20(3). Equivalent means corresponding or virtually identical esp. in effect or function. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 769 (unabr. ed.2002). Therefore, in order for a fence to be equivalent to a tight fence, it must contain some sort of physical barrier corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function to the substantial woven wire specification described in subsections 113.20(1) and (2). The district court found although Longfellow's fence did not comply with the specifications in subsections 113.20(1) or (2), the parties agreed Longfellow's fence is equivalent to a tight fence. The district court also found Longfellow's fence consisted of a combination of woven wire and barbed wire. We believe substantial evidence supports finding that Longfellow's fence is equivalent to a tight fence because his fence contains a physical barrier corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function to the substantial woven wire specification described in subsections 113.20(1) and (2). Sayler's fence consisted of five strands of barbed wire equally spaced on the posts. This spacing does not provide a physical barrier corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function to the substantial woven wire specification described in subsections 113.20(1) and (2). Without an equivalent physical barrier, Sayler's fence is nothing more than a lawful fence. Accordingly, not only do we find substantial evidence does not support the district court finding that Sayler's fence is a tight fence under section 113.20, but we also find as a matter of law Sayler's fence is not equivalent to a tight fence. Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment of the district court.