Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pennaco Energy Inc. acquired mineral leases beneath a surface estate owned by Brett Sorenson, Trustee of the Brett L. Sorenson Trust. A surface damage and use agreement between the parties granted Pennaco access to and use of the land for exploration and production of minerals, and, in return, required Pennaco to pay for the damage to and use of the surface estate, and to reclaim the land once operations ended. When Pennaco refused to perform its obligations under the contract, Soreson brought this lawsuit. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Sorenson suffered more than $1 million in damages. The district court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and also awarded Sorenson costs and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) ruling that Pennaco remained liable under the surface damage and use agreement after assignment, and (2) using a 2.5 multiplier to enhance the lodestar amount in awarding attorney fees. View "Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

Several individuals (collectively, “the Wimers”) filed a complaint against their neighbors (collectively, “the Cooks”) seeking an injunction prohibiting the Cooks from carrying out their plan of placing multiple single-family housing structures on a twenty-acre parcel of land, alleging that the Cooks’ plan for the property violated the neighborhood’s covenants. The Cooks counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint against all of the landowners in the area seeking a declaration that the covenants had been abandoned due to various covenant violations. The district court determined that the covenants had not been abandoned and that the Cooks’ plan to develop the land did not violate the covenants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) properly concluded that the covenants were not abandoned; and (2) erred in concluding that the Cooks’ plan did not violate the covenants, as the covenants prohibit multiple single-family dwellings on a parcel. View "Wimer v. Cook" on Justia Law

FIB filed a complaint against Dishman for judicial foreclosure. The district court granted FIB a partial summary judgment for the principal due, accrued interest, and most of FIB’s costs. The court later held a bench trial on FEB’s request for attorney fees and granted most of the requested fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by allowing FIB’s detailed attorney fee statement into evidence when FIB did not produce it until just before trial, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees associated with FIB’s efforts to withhold the detailed fee statement and by awarding fees incurred in unnecessary and unproductive work; and (3) in the interests of equity, the fees incurred by FIB after the summary judgment are reduced to account for FIB’s discovery violations. Remanded. View "Dishman v. First Interstate Bank" on Justia Law

First American Title Insurance Company issued title insurance policies to the predecessors of North Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP. When North Fork learned that Bunker Road, which crosses three of North Fork’s properties, was established as a county road, North Fork submitted notices of claims under the title insurance policies, asserting that First American failed to disclose to one of North Fork’s predecessors that Bunker Road burdened the properties and that it was damaged by the Bunker Road encumbrance. First American did not respond to North Fork’s claims, and North Fork filed suit against First American. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of First American, concluding that North Fork did not meet the definition of “insured” under the title insurance policies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that North Fork is a covered insured under the terms of the title insurance policy. Remanded. View "N. Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A road crosses the corner of a parcel of property owned by Boyd Van Fleet. A dispute arose between Van Fleet and Appellants concerning Appellants’ ownership and right to use that portion of the road in conjunction with bentonite mining operations. Appellants sued Van Fleet, asserting several claims, including prescriptive easement and adverse possession. Van Fleet counterclaimed for, inter alia, trespass/nuisance, damage to property, ejectment, and an injunction prohibiting Appellants from using the portion of the road on his property. The district court entered a judgment ruling generally in favor of Van Fleet. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellants failed to prove their claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement and that Van Fleet owned the land where the road traversed his property free of any right for them to use it. View "Wyo-Ben, Inc., v. Van Fleet" on Justia Law

This proceeding was the third and final phase of the general adjudication of water rights in the Big Horn River. The State recommended adjudicating water rights for fifty-two acres of land owned by Hat Bar Cattle Company. Neighboring landowner Betty Whitt objected to the recommendation. After a contested case hearing, the Special Master recommended adjudicating the right to irrigate the fifty-two acres at issue. The district court adopted the Special Master’s report and recommendation and adjudicated Hat Bar’s rights. Whitt appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Special Master correctly applied the burden of proof and that the finding regarding beneficial use of the water were not clearly erroneous. View "Whitt v. Hat Bar Cattle Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, the Fremont County Assessor assessed the commercial land and improvements of Mountain Vista Retirement Residence at $1,327,908 and its personal property at $8,246. The Fremont County Board of Equalization, the State Board of Equalization, and the district court upheld the valuation. Mountain Vista appealed, arguing that it should be exempt from property tax because it is a charitable or benevolent association that uses its property for primarily non-commercial purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mountain Vista is neither a charitable or benevolent association and that its property is primarily used for commercial purposes. View "Mountain Vista Ret. Residence v. Fremont County Assessor" on Justia Law

In the third and final phase of the general adjudication of water rights in the Big Horn River, the Wyoming Board of Control recommended elimination of certain unused and unadjudicated water rights under Farmers Canal Permit 854, including that rights to irrigate Tract 109. Frank Mohr, the owner of Tract 109, objected, admitting that Tract 109 had never been adjudicated under the Farmers Canal Permit but was adjudicated under the Perkins Ditch Enlargment Permit. In conjunction with his application for that permit, Mohr’s predecessor submitted an affidavit relinquishing his right to water under the Farmers Canal Permit. The Special Master recommended elimination of Tract 109 from the Farmers Canal Permit, finding that relinquishment of the Farmers Canal Permit by Mohr’s predecessor was final and not subject to attack by Mohr. The district court approved the Special Master’s recommendation, concluding that Tract 109 was serviced under the Perkins Ditch Enlargement and not the Farmers Canal Permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mohr was bound by the acts of his predecessor-in-interest and the previous adjudication of water rights to Tract 109; and (2) the district court gave Mohr a fair opportunity to present his case in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. View "In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River Sys." on Justia Law

Appellee filed the instant action for declaratory relief, claiming to have title to eighty percent of the mineral interest in certain Converse County, Wyoming property pursuant to a 1976 judgment and asserting that Appellants were barred under the doctrine of res judicata from claiming any interest in the property. Appellants argued that only the surface was at issue in the 1976 quiet title action. The district court concluded that res judicata barred Appellants’ current claim because the 1976 proceeding addressed the mineral interest. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, concluding that its predecessor acquired title to the mineral interest in the 1976 action, which was not contested by Appellants’ predecessors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly ruled that Appellants were barred from asserting that they owned the mineral interest; and (2) this dispute did not present an appropriate case for the application of laches. View "Clay v. Mountain Valley Mineral Ltd. P’ship" on Justia Law

Malcolm and French Wallop created an estate plan with the intention of owning and operating the Canyon Ranch and establishing a means of transferring its ownership and operation to their respective children. The estate plan led to the formation of the Wallop Family Limited Partnership (WFLP), which owned and operated the Canyon Ranch. Malcolm and French also formed Wallop Canyon Ranch, LLC (WCR) to serve as the general partner of the WFLP. Scott Goodwyn, individually, as a limited member in the WFLP and derivatively on behalf of the WFLP, sued Malcolm Wallop, WCR, the WFLP, and other Wallop family members, alleging breaches in the ownership, operation, and management of the WFLP. The district court (1) found generally in favor of Goodwyn on his claims relating to gifts made to him and other limited partners; (2) found generally against Goodwyn on his claims of breach of fiduciary duties by certain defendants; and (3) determined that the gifting issues upon which Goodwyn prevailed were derivative claims and that Goodwyn was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees relating to the derivative claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) awarding attorney’s fees; and (2) denying Goodwyn’s claims of breach of fiduciary duties by certain defendants. View "Goodwyn v. Wallop" on Justia Law