Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A woman and her long-term partner jointly purchased a duplex in Florida, signing both a promissory note and a mortgage as joint obligors and joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The note required monthly payments and a $100,000 balloon payment. After making all monthly payments, they failed to pay the balloon payment when due. The partner died shortly thereafter, and the woman became the sole owner of the property. The lender sent a default notice, and the woman entered into a forbearance agreement but did not pay the balloon payment. The lender filed a creditor’s claim against the deceased partner’s estate, which was rejected, leading the lender to sue the estate for the unpaid amount.The District Court of Fremont County, Wyoming, found the estate liable for the full balloon payment and associated costs, and also found the woman jointly liable as a co-obligor. The estate then sought contribution from the woman, arguing she should pay her share of the debt. After a bench trial, the district court determined that both the woman and the estate were each responsible for 50% of the balloon payment and related fees, applying Florida’s doctrine of equitable contribution. The court rejected the woman’s arguments that she should not be liable due to alleged inequitable conduct by the estate or because the deceased partner had intended to pay the balloon payment himself.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s application of Florida law and its equitable determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the woman was jointly liable for 50% of the balloon payment and associated costs. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of the doctrine of equitable contribution, its rejection of the unclean hands defense, or its allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Hutton v. Dykes" on Justia Law

A property owner purchased a lot in a Wyoming subdivision governed by two homeowners’ associations, each enforcing its own set of covenants. The owner sought to demolish an existing structure and build a new residence with an attached hangar, submitting construction plans for approval as required. Disputes arose over whether his application was complete and whether the associations unreasonably delayed or withheld approval, resulting in increased construction costs due to inflation. Complicating matters, one association (AVR I) had been dissolved years earlier, but its board continued to act as if it existed, later forming a new entity (AVR II) that purported to enforce covenants recorded after AVR I’s dissolution but before AVR II’s formal creation.The property owner initially sued AVR I, believing it to be the proper party, and later sued the other association, AAA. During discovery, he learned that AVR I had been defunct and that AVR II was the actual entity acting as the homeowners’ association. He moved to amend his complaint to add AVR II and assert new claims, including that the covenants were invalid. The District Court of Lincoln County denied the motion to amend, finding the amendments would be futile, and granted summary judgment to AVR I, reasoning that the covenants automatically approved the owner’s plans by default and any delay was self-imposed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. The Supreme Court found that the proposed claims against AVR II were not futile, as there were unresolved factual and legal questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the covenants and AVR II’s authority. The court also held that summary judgment for AVR I was premature. The orders denying amendment and granting summary judgment were reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Conger v. AVR Homeowner's Association, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether the trustees of a family trust, who inherited land south of a subdivision, have an easement—either express or implied—across Lot 4 of the subdivision, now owned by the Fullers. The subdivision, created by the Clarks’ predecessor, included a private road (Buttercup Lane) running north-south through all four lots, ending at a temporary cul-de-sac at the southern edge of Lot 4. The original owner reserved the right to extend the road to the southern boundary for access to adjoining lands, contingent on providing notice to Lot 4’s owners. After the Fullers purchased Lot 4 and denied access, the trustees sued, claiming an easement for access to their southern property.The District Court of Lincoln County held a bench trial and found that no express easement existed because the original owner had not exercised her reserved right by providing the required notice to Lot 4’s owners. The court also found no implied easement, concluding that the trustees failed to show that access through Lot 4 was necessary and beneficial, as alternative access routes to the southern property existed. The trustees appealed these findings.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the evidence did not show the required notice was given to create an express easement, and that the existence of alternative access routes meant the necessity element for an implied easement was not met. The Supreme Court of Wyoming thus affirmed the judgment, finding no express or implied easement across Lot 4 in favor of the trustees. View "Clark v. Fuller" on Justia Law

Kenneth Minshall sought to quiet title to a two-acre property in Washakie County, Wyoming, which had previously belonged to Gail Lee Quinn. Minshall lived with Quinn for decades and claimed that Quinn had agreed to transfer the property to his business, identified variously as M/G Enterprises, M/Q Enterprises, or M-Q Enterprises, all sharing the same EIN but none of which were ever legally incorporated. In 2018, Quinn executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the property to M/G Enterprises. After Quinn’s death in 2019, Minshall executed a quitclaim deed on behalf of M/G Enterprises to himself. Quinn’s daughters, Robin Griffin and Joy Osbon, as her heirs and personal representatives, contested Minshall’s claim to the property.The District Court of Washakie County held a bench trial and found that the deeds purporting to transfer the property to M/G Enterprises (or its variants) were void because the grantee entities had no legal existence and thus could not take title. The court concluded that the last valid deed left the property in Quinn’s name, making it subject to probate by her estate. The court ordered that the void deeds be stricken from the county records. Minshall appealed, arguing that the doctrine of estoppel by deed should prevent Quinn’s heirs and estate from challenging the validity of the deeds.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that estoppel by deed cannot apply where the underlying deed is void, as a deed to a nonexistent entity is a nullity and does not pass title. Because the grantee entities never legally existed, no interest in the property was conveyed, and the property remained with Quinn’s estate. The court affirmed that the doctrine of estoppel by deed had no application in this case. View "Minshall v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Thomas Hamann brought a lawsuit against Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID) and its manager, Randy Watts, alleging that HMID, through Watts' actions, damaged his property and caused him bodily injury. Hamann sought damages based on claims of inverse condemnation and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HMID and Watts, dismissing Hamann’s lawsuit entirely. Hamann appealed only the dismissal of his inverse condemnation claim against HMID.The district court found that HMID had not taken any official action to authorize Watts to enter Hamann’s property beyond the limited scope of work on the Riolo bowl, which Hamann had consented to. The court held that without such authorization, Hamann’s inverse condemnation claim could not survive summary judgment. Hamann argued that there was a material issue of fact regarding whether Watts was acting under the scope, authority, and direction of HMID’s board.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of Watts’ authority and whether his actions were authorized by HMID. The court noted that HMID’s bylaws allowed for delegation of responsibilities to its manager and other agents, and there was evidence suggesting that Watts had general discretion as HMID’s manager. Additionally, there was conflicting testimony about whether Watts had specific authorization to access Hamann’s property beyond the Riolo bowl.The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to HMID, as there were unresolved factual issues regarding the authorization of Watts’ actions and the extent of damage to Hamann’s property due to activities on adjoining land. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District" on Justia Law

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) submitted a site plan and an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to the City of Cody Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board (Board) for the construction of a temple. The Board approved the site plan and CUP application at a meeting on June 15, 2023. Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods (POCN), an association of local landowners, opposed the construction and filed petitions for review in the district court challenging the Board's approvals.The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over POCN’s petitions because they were untimely. The court found that the Board had approved the site plan and CUP at the June 15, 2023 meeting, and any subsequent actions by the Board to reconsider or modify those approvals were unauthorized. POCN's petitions for review were filed more than 30 days after the June 15, 2023 meeting, making them untimely.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that the Board's approval of the site plan and CUP at the June 15, 2023 meeting constituted final agency action, as it concluded the proceedings regarding the Church’s site plan and CUP application. The Court found that the Board did not have the authority to reconsider or modify its approvals at subsequent meetings. Therefore, POCN's petitions for review, filed in August 2023, were untimely, and the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. View "Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods v. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law

Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC (JHHR) sought to partition real property it claimed to own as a tenant in common with Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC (Leeks). Leeks counterclaimed, asserting sole ownership based on judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel, and adverse possession. The district court granted partial summary judgment to JHHR, dismissing Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Leeks on the adverse possession claim. Leeks appealed both the summary judgment and the trial findings.The District Court of Teton County granted summary judgment to JHHR on Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. The court found that Mr. Gill, representing JHHR, had forgotten about his 25% interest in the property during arbitration, negating the application of judicial estoppel. The court also found no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill, which is necessary for equitable estoppel. The court held that Mr. Gill’s statements during arbitration were not sufficient to establish estoppel.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Supreme Court agreed that judicial estoppel did not apply because Mr. Gill’s prior position was based on a mistake. The court also upheld the summary judgment on equitable estoppel, finding no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill. Regarding adverse possession, the Supreme Court found that Leeks failed to prove that its possession of the property was hostile to JHHR’s interest. The court noted that Leeks did not provide clear notice to JHHR that its ownership was in jeopardy, a requirement for adverse possession among cotenants. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings in favor of JHHR. View "Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

Rick Holloway and John Hoskin entered into a Commercial Sales Agreement to purchase the UXU Resort Ranch from Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC. The sale included a special use permit from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, which required a bridge inspection and load test before transfer. Due to the inspection's delay, the parties postponed closing and placed $200,000 in escrow for bridge-related expenses. After inspections, Park County Title released the escrow funds to Hidden Creek without H&H's consent, despite unresolved bridge issues.The District Court of Park County found that Hidden Creek and H&H each breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Park County Title breached the escrow agreement by releasing funds without H&H's approval. However, the court determined H&H failed to prove actual damages with sufficient certainty, awarding only nominal damages. The court also denied attorney’s fees to all parties.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings. The court held that H&H did not prove actual damages because the inspections did not conclusively identify necessary or required repairs. The court also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion, as both parties bore some fault in the litigation. The Supreme Court denied any attorney’s fees associated with the appeal. View "Holloway v. Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC" on Justia Law

Samuel Tilden filed a complaint against his neighbor, Linda Jackson, seeking a declaration of an implied easement over Jackson’s property or, alternatively, the establishment of a private road under Wyoming Statute § 24-9-101. Tilden had sold a portion of his property to Jackson in 2010 but retained a 2.64-acre parcel (Subject Property) that included a steep hillside and a flat meadow along the Southfork of the Shoshone River. Tilden and his family had historically accessed the lower portion of the Subject Property via a two-track road on Jackson’s property. After moving out of a cabin he rented from Jackson, Tilden sought legal access to the lower portion of his property.The District Court of Park County granted summary judgment in favor of Jackson on Tilden’s claim to establish a private road, finding that Tilden’s property was not landlocked as it had access to a county road. Following a bench trial, the district court also denied Tilden’s claim for an implied easement, concluding that Tilden’s use of the contested easement was not apparent, obvious, and continuous at the time of severance, and that the easement was not necessary for the enjoyment of his property.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the private road claim because Tilden’s property had legally enforceable access to a public road, and the necessity for a private road was not established. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the implied easement, agreeing with the district court’s findings that Tilden’s use of the proposed easement was not apparent, obvious, and continuous at the time of severance, and that the easement was not necessary for the enjoyment of his property. The court emphasized that implied easements should only be recognized when strictly necessary for the use and enjoyment of the dominant estate. View "Tilden v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners (State Board), granted Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) to permittees for the use of state land in Teton County. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (County Board) issued abatement notices to the permittees, asserting violations of county land use regulations. The State Board sought a declaration that it and its permittees were not subject to these regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Board, and the County Board appealed.The district court found that the State Board and its permittees were not subject to Teton County's land use and development regulations. The County Board argued that Wyoming statutes required compliance with local zoning laws for state lands under long-term leases and TUPs. The State Board countered that sovereign immunity protected it from such regulations and that the statutes did not apply to TUPs.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP are not subject to county land use and development regulations. The court reasoned that while Wyoming statutes require compliance with local zoning laws for long-term leases of state lands, they do not impose the same requirement for TUPs. The court emphasized that the legislature's omission of TUPs from the statutory requirement for compliance with local zoning laws was intentional. Therefore, the County Board lacked the authority to enforce its land use regulations against the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP. View "Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State" on Justia Law