Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2010, the director of the Wyoming Guardianship Corporation filed a petition for emergency appointment of a temporary guardian for Robert Sands, who was then seventy years old and suffered from dementia and other medical problems. The district court held a guardianship was necessary and appointed Richard Brown as guardian. Sands sought to terminate the guardianship, and the district court denied the petition. Six months later, however, the district court held a review hearing and terminated the guardianship, finding there was no longer a need for the guardianship. Prior to the hearing, Sands filed a complaint against Brown, alleging that Brown had breached his duties. The district court ruled in favor of Brown on Sands' complaint, concluding that Brown substantially complied with the statutes and did not violate his fiduciary duties, and awarded Brown and his attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in when it denied Sands' petition to terminate the guardianship, reopened the guardianship for the purpose of awarding fees and costs, and dismissed Sands' complaint against Brown. View "Sands v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged while driving under the influence. The Wyoming Department of Transportation suspended Appellant's driver's license. Appellant appealed, arguing that she had not been properly advised as to implied consent. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the suspension. Appellant sought review of the administrative suspension in the district court, raising a number of constitutional challenges to a municipal criminal ordinance in addition to the claim that she had not been properly advised under the implied consent statute. The district court concluded (1) the constitutional issues raised by Appellant had not and could have been raised in the administrative hearing, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims; and (2) Appellant was properly advised as to implied consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing officer correctly determined that Appellant was properly advised as required by statute; and (2) Appellant's other claims were not and could have been presented in a license suspension proceeding. View "Walters v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony stalking. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the amended information did not allege sufficient facts to constitute the offense of felony stalking and did not adequately inform him of the charges against him; and (2) the jury was not adequately instructed with respect to the intent element of the crime. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court did not err in permitting the State to amend the information; (2) Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to adequate notice of the charge he was required to defend against; but (3) the district court plainly erred by providing a confusing and misleading jury instruction that combined two of the elements of stalking, and the error in the jury instructions caused prejudice to Appellant. View "Walker v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to attempted second degree murder in an oral plea agreement and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five to fifty years in prison. The district court also awarded restitution. Appellant later removed to withdraw his plea, claiming that his attorney conspired with the court, misled him about the term he would serve, and coerced him into pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and in awarding restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (2) the district court had authority to award restitution and to waive public defender fees. View "Chapman v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 1990. The parties agreed that each parent would have custody of one child. In 1999, the parties stipulated to a modification of their divorce decree, agreeing that Father would have primary custody of both children. The district court ordered that the parties file further information as to child support, but neither party responded. The case remained inactive until 2003, when Father filed a motion for order to appear and show cause, requesting that the district court order Mother to pay her half of the children's expenses. The court ordered Mother to pay child support and certain related expenses. In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (Department) filed an action to enforce the 2003 order. Instead of enforcing the order, the district court set it aside, ordered that the child support obligation be recalculated, and directed that the revised child support obligation be applied retroactive to 1999. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to modify the 2003 child support order where no petition to modify had been filed. Remanded. View "State, Dep't of Family Servs. v. Powell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault and battery. The jury found Defendant guilty of threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon on another person, which was one of the State's two theories it advanced that Defendant committed aggravated assault. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial because the district court failed to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat before "threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon." The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions at issue did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and therefore, Defendant failed to establish plain error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "Mendoza v. State" 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

In 2005, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hired Plaintiff. In 2007, the DEQ terminated Plaintiff on the ground that he improperly incurred $2,500 in personal charges on a state-issued cell phone. Plaintiff challenged his termination, claiming the ground was pretext, and the Office of Administrative Hearings reinstated Plaintiff to his original position. The DEQ sought review of that position in district court and made an offer to settle, to which Plaintiff did not respond. The DEQ subsequently notified Plaintiff it was accepting his resignation because he had taken a job in Montana. The DEQ then withdrew its petition for review. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, claiming the DEQ's failure to comply with the conditions of his proffered resignation constituted wrongful termination. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiff then filed suit in district court, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the purported settlement agreement. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for failure to follow the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Armstrong v. Wyo. Dep't of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of larceny. Defendant appealed, claiming that the factual basis provided by the State for his guilty plea was inadequate as a matter of law because it did not establish the "taking" element of the crime of larceny. The State argued that the factual basis was sufficient because Defendant entered a voluntary plea and the facts established that he committed some crime even though the elements of the larceny statute were not satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court committed plain error by entering judgment on Defendant's guilty plea when it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. View "Nguyen v. State" 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