2011 WY 9

Summary of Decision January 21, 2011

[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: American National Bank, Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust v. Sara

Citation: 2011 WY 9

Docket Number: S-10-0104

URL: http://tinyurl.com/4moelj8

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton of Hageman & Brighton, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Hageman.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Scott W. Meier and Lucas E. Buckley of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Buckley.

Date of Decision: January 21, 2011

Facts: Appellant, acting as trustee of the irrevocable trust, appeals the district court’s denial of their motion to enforce a settlement agreement between family members. Appellant is also appealing the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing the motion to enforce.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in finding that the current action was a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction to decide the matter. Whether the district court erred in finding that the Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims did not discharge the mortgage and note at issue in this case. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Holdings: The district court erred in holding that Appellant’s motion to enforce was a quiet title action and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine such an action. Appellant’s motion clearly sought to enforce the terms of the Release. Furthermore, the district court erred in determining that the note and mortgage at issue in this case were not discharged by the Release. The clear intent of the parties entering into the Release was to discharge and release any and all claims that the parties had against each other, either individually or in their capacity as personal representatives or trustees. The note and mortgage were claims held by Appellee prior to entering into the Release and were subsequently discharged upon signing the Release. Accordingly, the Court reversed that portion of the district court’s order and remanded the matter to the district court for entry of an order discharging the note and mortgage at issue. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the American rule and requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees and costs. Reversed and remanded.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.