Daniel Everette Olean, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1328

Daniel Everette Olean,
Appellant,

vs.

Moose Lake CO-OPerative Association,
Respondent.

Filed April 22, 2019
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Carlton County District Court
File No. 09-CV-16-822

Daniel Olean, Finlayson, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Scott A. Witty, Jocelyn E. Bremer, Hanft Fride, P.A., Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant Daniel Everette Olean challenges the district court’s calculation of his
damages and its judgment in favor of respondent Moose Lake CO-OPerative Association
(CO-OP) on CO-OP’s breach-of-contract counterclaim. We affirm.

2
FACTS
In June 2015, Olean made a $3,553.77 purchase of fertilizer and glysophate from
CO-OP using his credit account. As part of the purchase, CO-OP offered Olean the use of
a fertilizer spreader at no additional cost. Olean used CO-OP’s spreader to fertilize five
separate corn fields, totaling approximately 83 acres.
Later that summer, Olean noticed an uneven growth pattern in the five fields that he
had fertilized with the borrowed spreader. Olean contacted CO-OP and made a claim to
his crop insurer. In mid-October 2015, a certified independent insurance adjuster inspected
Olean’s fields. In his report, the adjuster noted uneven growth patterns in 30 acres of corn,
which he attributed to fertilizer-spreading issues. For purposes of Olean’s insurance claim,
the adjuster calculated the financial impact of the unevenly fertilized portions of Olean’s
fields and determined that the total loss was $4,251.67.
In February 2016, Olean brought an action in conciliation court against CO-OP,
alleging that the spreader malfunctioned and caused crop damage. Olean sought $7,676.67
in damages plus costs. CO-OP asserted a counterclaim for nonpayment of Olean’s credit
account and sought damages of $4,022.32 plus costs. In April 2016, the conciliation court
awarded Olean judgment against CO-OP in the amount of $4,251.67. It also awarded
CO-OP judgment against Olean in the amount of $620.
CO-OP removed the case to district court pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 521 ,
alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and seeking damages of $4,154.68 plus
interest. Olean sought $23,237.10 in damages, an amount he argued was based on his
projected yield goal of 130 bushels of corn per acre.

3
The district court held a four-day bench trial in 2017. The district court found that
Olean had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a defect in the spreader caused
the uneven application of fertilizer and resulting crop loss. It awarded Olean $4,326.67 in
damages, including costs, a figure that was based on the adjuster’s calculation of damages.
The district court also found that CO-OP had proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Olean breached his credit -account agreement and awarded CO-OP $4,447.84 in
damages. The district court determined that CO -OP was the prevailing party pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 491A.02, subd. 7(b) (2018), and was entitled to an award of costs and
disbursements.
Olean asked for l eave to file a motion for reconsideration, which the district court
granted. Following a hearing, the district court issued an amended order. The amended
findings of fact include a calculation of damages for two additional fields. Although the
adjuster had not calculated a loss for those fields, the district court adopted his method of
calculation and found that Olean’s damages for crop loss in the two additional fields totaled
$1,307.25. The district court awarded Olean a total of $5,633.92 in damages, inclusive of
costs, for crop damage. The district court’s damages award to CO-OP and its prevailing-
party determination remained unchanged. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Olean contends that the district court erred in its calculation of damages. We review
a district court’s calculation of damages for an abuse of discretion. Holiday Recreational
Indus., Inc. v. Manheim Servs. Corp., 599 N.W.2d 179, 183 (Minn. App. 1999).

4
Olean asserts that his damages should be calculated based on the difference between
his projected yield goal of 130 bushels per acre and his actual yield, resulting in a figure of
$23,237.10. In support of his argument , Olean relies on the testimony of the CO-OP’s
agronomy manager, who stated that a yield of 13 0 bushels per acre or greater is
“achievable,” as evidence that Olean would have achieved such a yield if not for the
malfunctioning spreader. But a damages award must be based on “actual damages” or an
amount that compensates a complainant for a proven i njury or loss. Poppler v. Wright
Hennepin Coop Elec. Ass’n, 834 N.W.2d 527, 546 (Minn. App. 2013) , aff’d, 845 N.W.2d
168 (Minn. 2014) . We note that Olean provided only a partial transcript of the district
court proceedings, making review of this issue difficult. It is appellant’s burden to provide
an adequate record. Grundtner v. Univ. of Minn., 730 N.W.2d 323, 334 (Minn. App. 2007).
To determine Olean’s actual damages, the district court adopted the adjuster’s
method for calculating the crop damage. The adjuster calculated crop damage by:
(1) measuring the bushel -per-acre yield in the highest
production areas; (2) measuring the yie ld in the lowest
production areas of those fields; (3) calculating the difference
between the high-yield and low-yield areas; (4) multiplying the
result by the number of affected acres; and (5) multiplying the
bushels per acre lost through insufficient fertilizer by the fixed
price [of $4.15] per bushel.

The adjuster testified that Olean and the crop insurance adjusters present during his
inspection agreed on the number of affected acres, the method of calculation, and the loss
determination. Based on this method of calculation, Olean suffered a loss of $4,251.67 in
sections 4 and 28. The district court applied this methodology to determine Olean’s losses
in section 27, which contained 7.5 acres of corn. Using Olean’s insured yield of 84 bushels

5
per acre, a price of $4.15 per bushel, and an estimate that one -half of the 7.5 acres was
impacted by insufficient fertilizer, the district court found that Olean’s loss in section 27
was $1,307.25. On this record, the district court properly exercised its discre tion by
utilizing the adjuster’s method to calculate damages. We affirm the district court’s
damages calculation.
Olean also contends that the district court erred by finding in favor of CO-OP on its
breach-of-contract counterclaim , arguing that he did not have an open -ended credit
agreement with CO-OP and that CO-OP’s counterclaim is barred by Minn. Stat. § 513.33,
subd. 2 (2018).
Olean’s argument that the district court erred in finding that he had an open-ended
credit agreement with CO-OP is unavailing. The record includes Olean’s application for
an open -ended credit account. The record also includes an account ledger that shows
purchases and payments on the credit account, which Olean does not dispute. The district
court found that Olean used his credit account to make purchases on 15 dates—to purchase
fuel at the pump and to purchase fertilizer and livestock feed in the store. The record
includes evidence that Olean made payments to CO-OP on six dates but failed to pay the
remaining balance on his credit account of $4,447.84. The district court did not clearly err
in its finding that Olean had an open-ended credit agreement with CO-OP.
Minn. Stat. § 513.33, subd. 2, provides that “[a] debtor may not maintain an action
on a credit agreement unless the agreement is in writing, expresses consideration, sets forth
the relevant terms and conditions, and is signed by the creditor and the debtor.” CO-OP,
not Olean, brought the action based on the credit agreement. Minn. Stat. § 513.33, subd.

6
1(3) (2018), defines a “debtor” as “a person who obtains credit or seeks a credit agreement
with a creditor or who owes money to a creditor.” CO-OP is not a debtor under the
statutory definition . Because CO-OP is the creditor in this case, Minn. Stat. § 5 13.33,
subd. 2, does not apply and does not bar CO-OP’s counterclaim against Olean.
Next, Olean contends that the interest rate he was charged by CO-OP is in reality
an unlawful delinquency or collection charge and that the district court’s determination that
it did not violate Minn. Stat. § 334.062 (2018) is error. We disagree. Minn. Stat. § 334.062
states that agricultural cooperatives such as CO-OP “may impose, charge, and collect a
finance charge on goods, products, and services, including sales and open- and closed-end
credit transactions that do not exceed a monthly rate of 1 -1/2 percent or an annual rate of
18 percent.” Olean’s credit application and the ledger detailing his purchases and payments
with CO-OP reflect that the charges assessed by CO-OP were finance charges within the
meaning of Minn. Stat. § 334.062, not delinquency or collection charges. The district court
properly concluded that CO-OP’s interest charges were permissible under Minn. Stat.
§ 334.062.
Finally, for the first time on appeal, Olean asserts claims for breach of article II of
the Uniform Commercial Code and strict liability. A party may not raise a new issue on
appeal. Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) . Therefore, we decline to
address these arguments.
Affirmed.