Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Summit Construction filed a lawsuit against Jay Koontz and Jennie L. Kennette for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging nonpayment for work performed on Mr. Koontz’s home based on an oral agreement. The work included an addition to the home and extensive renovations to the existing structure. The District Court rejected both claims, determining that there was no enforceable oral contract between the parties and that Summit did not sufficiently prove its damages for the unjust enrichment claim.The District Court found that the parties had not mutually agreed to sufficiently definite terms for an oral contract. The court noted that the project progressed without a clear understanding of the scope of work, how it would be paid for, and who would be responsible for payment. The court also found that Summit's invoices did not clearly define the terms of the contract. Furthermore, the court concluded that Summit had failed to prove the amount by which Mr. Koontz was unjustly enriched, i.e., its damages.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court agreed that Summit had failed to show the existence of an enforceable oral contract with either Mr. Koontz or Ms. Kennette. The court also agreed with the lower court's finding that Summit had failed to establish its damages to a reasonable degree of certainty, which is necessary for an unjust enrichment claim. View "Summit Construction v. Koontz" on Justia Law

The case involves American Collection Systems, Inc. (ACS), a Wyoming corporation, and Lacy D. Judkins. ACS had obtained a default judgment against Judkins in 2010. However, ACS failed to execute the judgment for over five years, causing it to become dormant under Wyoming law. In 2022, ACS filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment. The district court revived the judgment but declined to award post-judgment interest. ACS then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to include post-judgment interest, which the district court denied. ACS appealed, arguing that the district court was legally required to award post-judgment interest.The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that it only had jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of ACS's motion to alter or amend the judgment, not the underlying judgment itself. The court noted that ACS's notice of appeal specifically identified only the post-judgment order as the order being appealed.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that the district court had misapprehended the controlling law when it denied ACS's request for mandatory post-judgment interest. The court held that the district court abused its discretion because its decision to deny the motion to alter or amend the judgment was based on erroneous legal conclusions. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter an amended judgment that includes the post-judgment interest through the date the judgment became dormant. View "American Collection Systems, Inc. v. Judkins" on Justia Law

This case involves a divorce dispute between Randall Thomas Bailey and Sara Elizabeth Bailey, now known as Ms. Larson. The couple married in 2005 and have three minor children. Ms. Larson filed for divorce in December 2022. The main issues in the case revolve around the district court's decisions on child custody, child support, and property division.The district court granted joint legal custody of the children, with the children's primary residence set with Ms. Larson. The court also calculated child support, imputing income to Mr. Bailey, and divided the couple's property, which was valued at approximately $2.2 million. The division required an equalization payment of $475,000 from Mr. Bailey to Ms. Larson.Mr. Bailey appealed the district court's decisions, arguing that the court abused its discretion in determining custody, calculating child support, and dividing the parties' property. He also contested the valuation of his gun collection, the valuation of accounts at the date of separation, and whether two properties in South Carolina should have been included in the marital estate.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the issues of custody, child support, and property division. The court also found that the evidence presented supported the district court's findings and conclusions, and that the property division was not so unfair or unreasonable as to shock the conscience. View "Bailey v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The case involves Camilo Jesus Alarcon-Bustos, who was convicted of felony property destruction and misdemeanor reckless driving and possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage. Alarcon-Bustos lost control of his truck while towing a trailer, causing significant damage to a park. The damage exceeded $18,000. Witnesses testified that Alarcon-Bustos and another man appeared intoxicated at the scene. Alarcon-Bustos claimed he had not been drinking and that the accident was caused by a problem with the wheel of his truck.At trial, Alarcon-Bustos was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to two to four years of incarceration, suspended in favor of two years of probation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by misstating the law and referring to facts not in evidence.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the prosecutor did not misstate the law regarding the "knowingly" element of felony property destruction. The court also found that while the prosecutor did reference a conversation with a prospective juror during closing arguments, which was not in evidence, this did not materially prejudice Alarcon-Bustos. The court concluded that Alarcon-Bustos did not establish plain error, and thus, his conviction was upheld. View "Alarcon-Bustos v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

This case involves a legal malpractice claim brought by Victoria Loepp against her former attorneys and their law firm. The dispute originated from an inheritance issue involving a house that Loepp was supposed to sell to her sister, Ms. Scott. Loepp hired attorney Ryan Ford to assist with the sale, but disagreements arose, leading to litigation. After a series of events, Loepp refused to accept the settlement terms negotiated by Ford, leading to his withdrawal from the case. Scott Murray replaced Ford as Loepp's counsel, but a court later ruled in favor of Scott. Loepp then filed a legal malpractice action against Ford, Murray, and their firm, alleging multiple instances of malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence.The District Court of Natrona County dismissed Loepp's claims based on a summary judgment order that struck her malpractice expert, Michael Watters, an attorney from California. The court found that Watters was not a qualified expert because he was not familiar with legal practice in Wyoming. The court also granted summary judgment on all claims, arguing that without Watters's expert testimony, Loepp could not prove the elements of legal malpractice.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the district court did not fully analyze the reliability and fitness of the proffered expert under W.R.E 702. The court held that where a lawyer is licensed or practices is just one factor to consider in the W.R.E 702 analysis. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the motion to strike and the related summary judgment decision. View "Loepp v. Ford" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Audrey Mae Lessner, who was convicted of felony child abuse under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-503(b)(i) (2023) after a bench trial. The charges stemmed from an incident where Lessner, while babysitting an 11-year-old child identified as FF, spanked the child eleven times with a belt as punishment for lying. The spanking resulted in significant bruising on the child's thigh. Lessner appealed her conviction, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to continue the trial and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she did not engage in reasonable corporal punishment.Prior to the trial in the District Court of Sweetwater County, Lessner had sought to represent herself, a request that the court granted after advising her of the risks. She later filed a motion for an extension of time, claiming that the prosecution was not assisting her in obtaining information for a subpoena. However, she later informed the court that she no longer needed an extension and was ready for trial. On the first day of the bench trial, Lessner filed a motion for an emergency hearing, asserting that she was not ready to proceed because the State was denying some discovery. The court denied her motion and proceeded with the trial.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lessner's motion to continue the trial. The court also found that the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the physical injury inflicted on the child was not the result of reasonable corporal punishment. The court noted that Lessner's actions, including her decision to use a belt to avoid injuring her hand and her refusal to stop spanking the child other than to rest her arm, did not represent a method of correction but rather an adult who had lost control of her own responses. View "Lessner v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Kamie Hultberg, who was convicted for felony child abuse under Wyoming Statute § 6-2-503(b)(i). The incident occurred when Hultberg, after a night of drinking, discovered her children were not at home as expected. She found her children at a friend's house, and upon returning home, an argument ensued between Hultberg and her 13-year-old daughter, AH. The argument escalated, leading to Hultberg physically assaulting AH by pulling her hair and repeatedly striking her head and face. A coworker of Hultberg, who was present during the incident, called 911, reporting that Hultberg was "beating her children."The District Court of Campbell County convicted Hultberg of child abuse after a three-day trial. The court sentenced her to four to five years in prison, which was suspended in favor of four years of supervised probation. Hultberg appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove she committed the offense.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence, including a clump of hair consistent with AH's and the visible swelling and discoloration on AH's face, was sufficient to conclude that Hultberg inflicted physical injuries on AH. The court also determined that these injuries were not the result of reasonable corporal punishment, as Hultberg claimed. The court noted that Hultberg's actions represented an adult who had lost control of her responses, rather than a method of correction or a reasonable means of obtaining the child's attention and compliance. View "Hultberg v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Hassan Ahmed Said, who was sentenced to two to four years in prison for three separate counts in three different dockets. The district court awarded credit for time served as follows: 115 days against the sentence in one docket, 100 days against the sentence in the second docket, and 153 days against the sentence in the third docket. Said argued that the district court erred by not awarding the 153 days credited in the third docket against his sentences in the first and second dockets.Previously, the district court had denied Said's motion to correct an illegal sentence in the first and second dockets. Said claimed that the district court erred by awarding the 153 days credit from his third arrest only to the third docket. He argued that the 153 days of presentence confinement should have been credited to all three dockets. The district court held that Said was awarded proper credit for time served and found that he was entitled to nothing more.In the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Said contended that his sentence was illegal because the district court declined to award credit for the 153 days he spent in presentence confinement from his third arrest against his concurrent sentences in the first and second dockets. The State argued that the 153 days Said spent incarcerated from his third arrest is directly related to separate criminal charges, so Said is not entitled to the additional credit in the first and second dockets. The Supreme Court agreed with the State and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Said received credit for the actual time served against his total term of imprisonment, and therefore his sentence is legal. View "Said v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Russell Patrick Benedict, who was convicted of sexually abusing his sixteen-year-old daughter, AB. During the investigation, Benedict's cellphone was seized, and a warrant was obtained to search its contents. However, the phone's contents were never searched as Benedict claimed he could not remember the passcode. After his conviction, Benedict filed a motion for the return of his and AB's cellphones. The State objected to the return of Benedict's phone, suspecting it contained nude photos of AB, which would constitute child pornography. The district court denied Benedict's motion without taking evidence on it, leading to an appeal.The State conceded that the district court should have received evidence before ruling on Benedict's motion and requested a reversal and remand for the district court to receive evidence. The Supreme Court of Wyoming granted the State's motion and ordered the matter to be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Benedict's motion.The district court held the evidentiary hearing, during which the State argued against the return of Benedict's cellphone based on its earlier assertion that it likely contained child pornography. The district court found that the State had an interest in preventing the dissemination of child pornography and in preventing further trauma to AB. It concluded that the State had an interest in retaining Benedict's phone and denied Benedict's motion for its return. Benedict appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State had met its burden of proving an interest in retaining Benedict's cellphone. View "Benedict v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucia Guh-Siesel, who filed for divorce from Brian Allan Siesel in Wyoming. Guh-Siesel claimed that she had been a resident of Teton County, Wyoming, for more than 60 days prior to filing the complaint. She also stated that she and Siesel were the parents of a minor child who had resided in Wyoming for five consecutive months before the filing of the complaint. Siesel, however, argued that Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and that California was a better forum because he had not been in Wyoming since October 2022, all potential trial witnesses were in California, and he and Guh-Siesel had never resided together in Wyoming.The District Court of Teton County held a hearing on Siesel's motion to dismiss. The court found that the parties had decided to relocate to Wyoming in 2022, and they had signed a lease for a home in Wilson, Wyoming. However, Siesel returned to California for work in October 2022 and has remained there since. Guh-Siesel, who was battling cancer, arrived in Wyoming in October 2022 and took steps to become a Wyoming resident. After the hearing, the district court granted Siesel’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decision and found that the lower court had abused its discretion when it dismissed the case. The Supreme Court noted that Guh-Siesel had been a Teton County, Wyoming, resident for more than 60 days immediately preceding her divorce filing, which satisfied the requirements for a Wyoming district court to acquire jurisdiction over a divorce action. The Supreme Court also found that the district court had not properly analyzed the factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Guh-Siesel v. Siesel" on Justia Law