Summary 2010 WY 168

Summary of Decision December 21, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Helm v. Clark

Citation: 2010 WY 168

Docket Number: S-10-0002

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2abdqds

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, The Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiffs): Joseph B. Bluemel of Bluemel Law Office, Kemmerer, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendants): Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2010

Facts: This case involves a dispute between adjoining property owners in Lincoln County, Wyoming. Plaintiffs attempted to relocate a fence which for many years had separated their pasture from a pasture belonging to Defendant. The fence was south of the recorded property line. Defendant objected and claimed that he had acquired title to the property between the recorded boundary and the fence by adverse possession. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title to the property in Defendant. On appeal, the Plaintiffs claim the district court committed various errors in arriving at its decision.

Issues: Whether the district court’s findings of fact that Defendant had established a case for adverse possession were clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of the evidence when there was no evidence of “the definitive location, course or continuity of the fence” and “many facts material to proving adverse possession [were] absent or lacking;” the trial court specifically found Defendant “admitted the north-south fence on the east boundary of the area being adversely possessed until 1999 was a fence of convenience;” and the “evidence clearly shows the north-south fence on the east boundary of the property claimed to be adversely possessed was moved in 1999 or only eight years before this matter ensued.” Whether the district court erred by failing to rule that Defendant was estopped from arguing that the fence was a boundary fence because members of his family had admitted that the north-south fence on the east boundary of the property was a fence of convenience?

Holdings: The district court’s findings of fact that Defendant had established a case for adverse possession was consistent with prior cases, supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Also, the district court correctly ruled the Defendants’ admission that a north-south fence on the east boundary separating different types of land was a fence of convenience, was not relevant to the present dispute and did not have any preclusive effect in the present case.

The Plaintiffs also contested the lack of evidence about the exact location of the fence and, accordingly, the disputed property. The trial evidence did not support the district court’s simple rectangular description. The failure to provide a proper legal description did not, however, undermine the district court’s ultimate finding that Defendant proved he adversely possessed the property and was entitled to have title quieted in him.

The Court held that the district court correctly ruled Defendant had proven his claim for adverse possession of the disputed tract; however, the district court’s decision as to the size and exact location of the disputed area was clearly erroneous. The Court affirmed in part, but reversed and remanded for a determination of the exact legal description of the adversely possessed property.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.