Summary 2007 WY 18

Summary of Decision issued January 31, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Platt v. Alice and Murray Creighton

Citation: 2007 WY 18

Docket Number: 06-62

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): William D. Bagley of Bagley, Karpan, Rose & White, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Stephen H. Kline of Kline Law Office, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Appellant/Plaintiff: Whether the district court erred in refusing to accept the agreement of counsel allowing Platt additional time to respond to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment when the response was complete and the agreed extension did not interfere with the time table in the Scheduling Order. Whether, in the alternative, the district court erred in refusing to recognize that Platt’s reliance on such an agreement was, at worst, excusable neglect as defined by W.R.C.P. Rule 6(b). Whether the district court erred in making its determination based on the Statute of Limitations based on the record before the Court on January 20, 2006. The legal system; bench, bar and client.
Appellee/Defendant: Whether the district court erred in finding that Platt’s failure to file a timely Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was inexcusable and in finding that Platt thus had no response before the Court relating to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Whether the district court properly determined the Statute of Limitations for this action ran prior to the action being filed.

Facts/Discussion: Platt filed a complaint alleging the Creightons held over 151 cows and calves owned by him in a constructive trust as part of a joint venture in conjunction with a lease with the Platt Ranch Trust. He sought an accounting of funds, termination of the constructive trust, and a return of the cattle or their value. The Creightons filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to an oral agreement with the Creightons, Platt filed his response and substantive materials after the deadline established by the district court’s scheduling order. The district court ruled Platt’s response was untimely and granted the motion concluding that Platt’s complaint was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
When the Court reviews the granting of summary judgment, they employ the same standards and use the same materials as were employed and used by the trial court. The Court reviews a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo and they afford deference to the trial court’s ruling.
The Court has stated that except as may be permitted by the Wyoming Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, time limits permitted or required by rules or court order may not be extended or modified by agreement of counsel but only by order. The Court did not agree with Platt’s characterization of the informal agreement between the parties’ counsel to enlarge the prescribed time for reply to the motion for summary judgment as “excusable neglect”.
Wyoming is a discovery jurisdiction “in which the statute of limitations is triggered when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the existence of a cause of action.” In his deposition, Platt admitted to being aware of the agreement to transfer cattle to the Creightons. Furthermore he signed the documents transferring the remaining cattle and the Ranch brand to the Creightons on April 1, 1998. As the district court noted, the April 1, 1998 transactions were the last acts underlying Platt’s cause of action. If Platt had retained ownership interest in those cattle, then there was no question that he knew or should have known that he had a cause of action at that time.
Holding: The district court correctly held that the four-year statute of limitations had been triggered and that Platt had, at the latest, until April 1, 2002 to commence litigation. Platt’s Complaint was not filed until June 6, 2005 and accordingly his claims were barred.
The Court also noted that even if they had accepted Platt’s argument concerning commencement of the statute of limitations, the Creightons were still entitled to summary judgment because they had established a prima facie case and the record contained no evidence rebutting the Creightons and showing that Platt had retained an ownership interest in the cattle.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3ysmm4 .