Opinion ID: 2629946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Validity of July 24, 2001, Lease/Purchase Agreement

Text: [¶ 59] Meima asserts that the district court erred in rejecting his claims that the parties' July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement was invalid due to a lack of consideration, economic duress, undue influence, or unconscionability of terms. On appeal, however, Meima's arguments are similarly based on his trial testimony and his particular view of the record according to that testimony. For example: (a) In a single paragraph, Meima argues that because the parties had a valid oral agreement in April or May of 2001, the July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement was void due to a lack of consideration for additional terms that, [a]ccording to Mr. Meima's testimony, the parties had not previously discussed; (b) In asserting that the July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement was void due to economic duress or undue influence, Meima: (1) reiterates his prior contention that the parties had a valid oral agreement prior to the lease/purchase agreement; (2) references evidence that he claims overwhelmingly supports [Meima's] testimony that Broemmel had, in fact, controlled most of [Meima's] assets as of July 24, 2001; (3) argues that the evidence suggests Broemmel would have backed out of the second closing if Meima did not agree to the terms contained in the July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement; and (4) concludes that Broemmel forced the lease/purchase agreement on Meima because he demanded such additional terms only after [he] obtained complete control over nearly all of [Meima's] assets, and Meima involuntarily accepted the terms because he had no other meaningful choice or alternative; and (c) In arguing that the lease/purchase agreement was void due to unconscionable terms, Meima references his prior arguments on economic duress/undue influence and merely states that Broemmel therefore deprived Meima of a meaningful choice about whether or not to enter an inequitable agreement with no opportunity for meaningful negotiations regarding the terms of the agreement. We need not address these issues because the applicable standard of review precludes us from substituting our judgment for that of the district court regarding the credibility of Meima's trial testimony, and from reweighing disputed evidence.