Court Opinion

ID: 9571672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:06.766303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:47.415563
License: Public Domain

KLAPHAKE, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the judgment and remand for trial on the merits. Viewing, as we must, the evidence in the light most favorable to the farmers, I believe that two substantial fact issues preclude summary judgment in this case.
First, the evidence is sufficient to permit a factfinder to conclude that this was a storage transaction rather than the sale that the elevator claims. Each of the applicable scale tickets issued by the elevator were marked “STG” or “store.” There was no indication on any of the tickets that the grain was received on any form of the “price later” contract that the elevator claimed. Moreover, no price was indicated on any of the scale tickets. The absence of such price notation was a clear violation of Minn.Stat. § 232.23, subd. 2 (1990), which requires that:
The scale ticket shall state specifically whether the grain is received on contract, for storage, for shipment or consignment or sold. If the grain is re*87ceived on contract or sold, the price shall be indicated on the scale ticket.
Second, even if the transaction were a sale, the evidence here permits an inference that the elevator is not a “good faith purchaser.” In a three-month period the elevator accepted delivery of, and purports to have purchased, 114, 877 bushels of corn and 3,454 bushels of soybeans from the trucker whom the elevator knew not to be a grain producer, and who was at the time heavily in debt to the elevator. As a licensed grain dealer, the elevator arguably knew that the trucker could not legally possess such large amounts of grain unless he was also licensed by the state, but failed to take minimal steps to determine whether he was in fact properly licensed. In my view, this evidence is inconsistent with the notion of good faith. The majority properly notes that “the good faith test is a subjective rather than objective test.” Since the subjective test necessarily involves the credibility of the elevator operator, I believe that the question of the elevator’s “honest belief in the rightfulness of its actions” is properly resolved by a jury rather than on a motion for summary judgment.
For the above reasons, I would reverse summary judgment in this case and allow a jury, as factfinder, to determine the merits of the farmers’ claims.