Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a stipulated property settlement, child custody, child support agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the divorce decree, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties' division of debt. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Husband's petition, concluding that any misrepresentation by Wife about certain loans was insufficient to reopen the decree of divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Wife may have made misrepresentations concerning the loans, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the debt allocation to Wife did not result in an overall allocation of debt that was mistaken or unfair. View "Campbell v. Hein" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court erred by refusing to order one of his co-conspirators to submit handwriting exemplars so that Defendant's expert witness could analyze whether the co-conspirator was the author of certain notes sent in jail. The district court concluded that there was no legal authority to require a non-party to appear before trial to provide handwriting exemplars. The Supreme Court disagreed with the district court but affirmed, holding (1) the subpoena procedure may be used to order a witness to provide handwriting exemplars; but (2) any error regarding Defendant's right to obtain handwriting exemplars from his co-conspirator was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "West v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with first degree sexual assault. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of third degree sexual assault. Appellant appealed, arguing that the jury should not have been instructed on third degree sexual assault because that offense was not charged and was not a lesser included offense of first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction for third degree sexual assault, holding that third degree sexual assault is not a lesser included offense of first degree sexual assault, and the jury in this case should not have been so instructed. View "Jackson v. State" 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

Appellants purchased property that was subject to a Master Plan that restricted the use and development of the property. Appellants obtained title insurance from Insurer, but the policy did not mention the Master Plan. Appellants only later learned of the Master Plan when they were informed they were in violation of the Master Plan and faced substantial penalties if they failed to comply with the Plan. Appellants sued Insurer, claiming a breach of the terms of the title insurance policy, negligence, and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer on all claims brought in Appellants' complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of Insurer. View "Sonnett v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

MF was adjudicated a child in need of supervision (CHINS) shortly before his sixteenth birthday. Four months before MF's seventeenth birthday and after MF twice violated his probation, the juvenile court ordered that MF remain in the custody of the Department of Family Services and on probation until his eighteenth birthday. MF appealed, arguing that any CHINS order must terminate when the minor child turns seventeen. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the juvenile court's order to the extent the order purported to have effect beyond MF's seventeenth birthday, holding that the juvenile court did not have the authority to issue a CHINS order that imposed conditions beyond MF's seventeenth birthday. View "In re MF" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to one felony count of aggravated assault and battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. Appellant appealed, claiming that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because he was not properly advised. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the district court erred in failing to advise him at arraignment of the potential loss of firearm rights and any impact that loss might have on employment in occupations that require the use of a firearm, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507. The State argued that firearms advisements not be required for Defendants with prior convictions that disqualify them from possessing firearms under federal law. The Supreme Court set Appellant's conviction aside, holding that the district court erred in failing to advise Appellant of the potential loss of his firearms rights under federal law, as section 7-11-507 applies to all defendants facing a charge that may, under federal law, result in loss of firearms rights and employment requiring possession of a firearm. View "Balderson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of wrongful disposing of that property. Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Appellant contended, among other things, that the two criminal counts should have merged for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the "same elements" test shall henceforth serve as the sole test for evaluating sentencing merger questions, and the "same facts or evidence test" is overruled; (2) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to merge sentences. View "Sweets v. State" on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to one count of felony property destruction pursuant to a plea agreement. In accordance with the plea agreement, Appellant received first offender treatment and was placed on supervised probation for five years. Appellant appealed, challenging the district court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal where (1) Appellant's brief failed to present any valid contentions supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority; and (2) to the extent the Court was able to guess at the nature of Appellant's claims, they were waived by Appellant's no contest plea to the charge against him. View "Serna v. State" on Justia Law