Summary 2007 WY 5

Summary of Decision issued January 16, 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: Steiger & Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Association

Citation: 2007 WY 5

Docket Number: 05-110

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Peter B. Steiger and Sylvia Steiger, Pro se.

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

Issue: Whether the Happy Valley Homeowners Association (HoA) lacked capacity to bring and maintain the instant suit.

Facts: The Steigers own a tract in the Happy Valley subdivision. The HoA claimed the Steigers were in violation of a protective covenant and brought the instant action to enforce the covenant.

Discussion: The Steigers alleged the instant legal action against them was never duly authorized by the HoA. The Steigers served a request for admissions on the HoA who did not serve a response within the thirty-day time limit established by W.R.C.P. 36, thereby admitting all the matters asserted in the request. The record did not reveal a motion by the HoA for withdrawal or amendment of the admissions, nor was there any order allowing the same. As the record stands, the HoA has admitted, and it is therefore conclusively established, that any action the Board might have taken to authorize this suit was invalid. Without proper authorization, the HoA lacked capacity to prosecute the instant suit. This lack of capacity was an insurmountable objection to summary judgment.

Holding: The Court stated it was error to grant summary judgment to the HoA in an action HoA had admitted it was not authorized to bring or maintain.

Reversed and remanded

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/v88hk .