Summary 2010 WY 5

Summary of Decision issued January 14, 2010

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

Case Name: Hutchinson v. Taft

Citation: 2010 WY 5

Docket Number: S-09-0028, S-09-0067

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

Representing Appellant in Case No. S-09-0028: Matthew H. Romsa, John M. Kuker and James M. Peterson of Romsa & Kuker, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees in Case No. S-09-0028: James R. Salisbury of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Gerald D. Hutchinson’s predecessors in interest (the Hutchinsons) leased property owned by Josephine Taft. After leasing the property for about ten years, the Hutchinsons ceased making the lease payments but continued to use the property. When a trustee of the Tafts later listed the Taft property for sale, the Hutchinsons filed a claim to quiet title to the property in them on the theory of adverse possession.

Order granting motion on partial findings: A permissive user may change his possession into adverse title with a clear, positive, and continuous disclaimer and disavowal of the title of the true owner brought home to the latter’s knowledge. The Court stated that the Hutchinson’s claim failed noting the Tafts’ actions of entering into oil and gas leases on the property and selling a portion of the property to the State constituted overt acts of ownership inconsistent with the adverse possession claim.
Exhibit 9: On the day of trial, prior to opening statements, the Tafts objected to the Hutchinsons’ Exhibit 9 (Cara Taft’s and Leon Harney’s discovery responses.) The district court did not “rule” on the admissibility of Exhibit 9. Rather, upon hearing the motion, the district court deferred ruling and moved ahead with opening statements. The issue was not addressed again because the Hutchinsons rested their case without offering the exhibit. While it was apparent from the record that the Hutchinsons intended to offer the exhibit, the opportunity never arose because the district court granted judgment for the Tafts at the close of the Hutchinsons’ case.
Denial of motions to amend findings and for new trial: In denying the Hutchinsons’ post-trial motions, the district court found that the Hutchinsons had not presented sufficient evidence to show that what began as permissive use became hostile use. Implicit in the finding is the conclusion that neither the admission of Exhibit 9 nor Cara Taft’s anticipated testimony would have changed that result. It would not have satisfied the obligation to show a clear, positive, and continuous disavowal of the Tafts’ title to the property.

Conclusion: Given the evidence presented, the Court could not conclude the district court’s determination was unreasonable. The Hutchinsons’ use of the Taft parcel remained essentially the same from the time they rented it in 1961 to the time of trial. As occasions arose when they could have disavowed the Tafts’ ownership and asserted their own, the Hutchinsons did neither. In the face of division orders and royalty payments to the Tafts as owners of the property, the Hutchinsons did nothing; in the face of the State’s efforts to purchase a strip of the Taft property, the Hutchinsons did nothing. The Hutchinsons’ evidence was insufficient to establish adverse use. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-trial motions.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yk3m9m9 .

[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.]