Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This third appeal concerned a judgment obtained by David and Elizabeth Speaks against Byron Baker. Two properties, the Corsi Ranchettes lot and the Misty Meadows lot, were fraudulently transferred by Byron and Rosemary Baker to their son, Nathan, who, in turn, transferred the properties to Bryner Farms, LLC, a family-owned company, which conveyed the properties to Pat’s Dream Project Trust and MME Trust (collectively, “the Baker Defendants”). The Baker Defendants asserted the property was exempt from execution from the judgment against Byron, alone, because it was held by Byron and Rosemary as tenants by the entirety. The district court concluded (1) the Bakers were not married when they took title to the Corsi Ranchettes property, and therefore, Byron’s interest was not entitled to protection from legal process; and (2) the Speaks brought the action to declare the Misty Meadows property transaction fraudulent within the applicable limitations period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that the Speaks were entitled to execute on Byron’s interest in the Misty Meadows lot; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the Bakers could not create a valid tenancy by the entirety with regard to the Corsi Ranchettes lot. View "Baker v. Speaks" on Justia Law

The Star Valley Ranch Association mounted an effort to amend the restrictive covenants governing the Star Valley Ranch subdivision. Appellees, owners of property in the subdivision, challenged the validity of the amended covenants by filing suit in the district court. Specifically, Appellees sought a declaration that the amendments were invalid because the Association had not complied with the previous covenants’ requirements for amendments. Appellees also sought an injunction prohibiting the Association from implementing and enforcing the amended covenants. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in holding that the amended covenants were invalid; (2) the Association’s claim of impracticability failed; and (3) Appellees had standing to challenge the amendments as a single, unified set of covenants applicable to the entire subdivision. View "Star Valley Ranch Ass’n v. Daley" on Justia Law

Appellant owned property as a tenant in common with Appellees, two relatives. Both parties sought to partition the property. The district court concluded that Appellant ousted Appellees from the property and, therefore, must pay them a fair rental value for the use of the property. Appellees became the successful bidders of the property at a second public sale, and the district court approved the sale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly held that Appellant ousted the cotenant Appellees and must pay them the fair rental value for the time she exclusively occupied the property; (2) the district court’s calculation of the total amount of rent Appellant owed the cotenants was not clearly erroneous; (3) Appellees were entitled to bid at the public sale of the partitioned property and were entitled to bid the value of their interests in the property and a portion of the monetary award for rent in lieu of payment; and (4) Appellant was not entitled to a homestead exemption even though she occupied the partitioned property at times. View "Martin v. Prieto" on Justia Law

In this adverse possession case, Henry and Simona Prado purchased a lot in 1966 and used a strip of land under the mistaken belief that the land was theirs. In 1989, Tracy and Norma Lampman brought the lot to the east of the Prados that included the narrow parcel. The owners of each lot each apparently believed they owned the strip of land. In 2011, Christopher and Tami Graybill entered into a contract for deed with the Prados, took possession of their lot, and began using the disputed strip of land. When a survey established the true property line, the Lampmans fenced off the disputed parcel. The district court quieted title in the Lampmans, concluding that the Graybills and the Prados (collectively, Appellants) did not own the disputed area by adverse possession. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellants established their adverse possession claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court erred in finding to the contrary. Remanded. View "Graybill v. Lampman" on Justia Law

Frank Forelle and William Fix were neighbors in a subdivision. After Forelle built a fence on his property along the border of the parties’ adjoining properties, Fix complained that the fence violated the subdivision’s covenants. Fix, an attorney who represented himself in the matter, prevailed on his claim in the district court. Relying on a covenant provision regarding reimbursement for costs incurred in enforcing the covenants, Fix subsequently sought attorney fees. The district court awarded Fix attorney fees, but later, in an amended judgment, concluded that Fix could not recover fees for the legal work he performed because he did not actually incur any fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Fix was never liable for or subject to his own attorney fees, he did not incur any fees, and therefore, Fix was not entitled to recover attorney fees for the work he performed in the litigation. View "Fix v. Forelle" on Justia Law

After Peggy Gheen died, her sons discovered quitclaim deeds Mrs. Gheen had executed to them for her interests in a residential property and a farm. The Gheen sons subsequently recorded the deeds. The State ex rel. Dep’t of Health, Div. of Healthcare Financing/Equitycare (Department) filed a lien against both properties to recover the cost of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of Mrs. Gheen before her death. The Gheen sons filed a petition to remove a false lien and quiet title, claiming they were the rightful owners of the property. The Department moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had a valid lien because Mrs. Gheen owned the properties at the time of her death and the quitclaim deeds were not valid. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department’s Medicaid lien was valid as to the properties. View "Gheen v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Health" on Justia Law

Gary Hopkins and Randal Burnett formed a LLC and financed the project with a small business administration (SBA) loan. Bank 1 loaned the remainder of the total project costs. Hopkins secured the SBA portion of the loan with third mortgages on his rental properties. Bank 2 subsequently acquired Bank 1. After Burnett bought Hopkins' membership in the LLC, Bank 2 released Hopkins from his loan. However, an agreement entered into by the parties did not mention the third mortgages on the property held by SBA. Burnett subsequently defaulted on his loan obligations, and Bank foreclosed on the mortgage covering the business property. Because Hopkins' third mortgages on his rental properties were not released by SBA, Hopkins was forced to continue to make the payments on the SBA loan. Hopkins and his wife (Plaintiffs) sued Bank 2, Burnett, and the LLC, arguing that, pursuant to the agreement, Bank 2 was supposed to remove Hopkins' liability and the mortgages held on his property. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank 2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the terms of the contract between the parties were unambiguous, extrinsic evidence was not required to discern the parties' intent, and Bank 2 had abided by the terms of the contract. View "Hopkins v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned property that was conveyed by warranty deed to J.A. Reed. In 1968, Reed conveyed the property to Julianne Biggane, and in 2006, the Biggane Trust transferred the property to Plaintiffs. Prior to Reed's transfer of the property to Biggane, a pole line easement across the property was granted to PacifiCorp's predecessor in interest. Reed, however, signed the easement grant as president of Continental Live Stock Company, rather than in his personal capacity, at a time that the company had no interest in the underlying land. Therefore, the easement was a "wild deed." At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a "wild deed" can be the "root of title" under the Wyoming Marketable Title Act. This case arose when Plaintiffs filed an action seeking to have the easement declared invalid because it emanated from a wild deed. The district court held that the Act validated PacifiCorp's easement across Plaintiffs' property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a wild deed may constitute the root of title under the Act, and a wild deed serving as a root of title that does not bear a defect "on its face" is not an "inherent defect" in the chain of record title under the Act. View "Esterholdt v. PacifiCorp" on Justia Law

Debtor borrowed money to finance a real estate purchase. Debtor signed a promissory note and secured the loan with a mortgage. Bank of America (BANA) became the owner of the note. After the mortgage was recorded, an assignment of the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was recorded. MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to BAC Home Loans Servicing (BAC), which was servicing the loan on behalf of BANA. After Debtor defaulted on her home loan, she and her husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee subsequently initiated an adversary proceeding against BAC, seeking to avoid the mortgage for its failure to comply with the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 34-2-122 and -123 (the statutes), notice statutes intended to protect third parties from conflicting claims of a principal and agent. The U.S. bankruptcy court filed a certification order to the Wyoming Supreme Court requesting the Court to answer with the mortgage must comply with the requirements of the statutes. The Supreme Court held that the statutes did not apply in this case because there were no conflicting claims by a principal and an agent from which a third party needed protection. View "Barney v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

The parties to the dispute were two rural landowners who owned easements crossing a parcel of ranchland. When Appellant improved the common roadway and asked his neighbor, Appellee, to contribute to the cost of the improvements, Appellee brought suit against Appellant seeking a declaratory judgment as to the parties' respective rights and duties relating to the maintenance and repair of the road. Appellee also sought injunctive relief and damages for Appellant's alleged interference with Appellee's use of the easement. Appellant counterclaimed for equitable contribution from Appellee for the costs he incurred in improving the road. The district court ruled in Appellee's favor. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's request for equitable contribution; but (2) reversed its declaration of the parties' rights regarding any future maintenance work and as to the rights of the parties to recover for repair and maintenance they perform. Remanded. View "Koch v. J&J Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law