Summary 2011 WY 94

Summary of Decision June 16, 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: Allen v. Anderson

Citation: 2011 WY 94

Docket Number: S-10-0215

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462903

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Matthew D. Winslow of Keegan & Winslow, Cody, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Alex H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, Cody, Wyoming

Date of Decision: June 16, 2011

Facts: Appellee and Appellant were involved in a long-term, non-marital relationship. Upon separation, the parties agreed that each should have ownership of personal property in their respective possession. Appellant alleges that Appellee wrongly took some of his personal property into her possession. The district court determined that Appellent failed to claim the personal property at issue in a timely fashion and thus effectively abandoned his claim to it.

Issues: Whether the District Court erred in applying the incorrect legal standard when it held that Appellant abandoned the subject personal property. Whether the District Court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous when it held that Appellant abandoned the subject personal property.

Holdings: The solution to this appeal actually lies entirely in the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. A settlement agreement is a contract and, therefore, subject to the same legal principles that apply to any contract. The settlement agreement unambiguously awards ownership of these items to Appellee. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Appellee was awarded the real property on which the loafing shed housing the personal property is situated. All items of personal property on the land, including the items in the loafing shed, came into Appellee’s possession as incident to the ownership of the real property. Since the settlement agreement also grants Appellee ownership of all items of personal property in her possession, the items in the loafing shed became her property.

The fact that the personal property at issue was not itemized does not make the settlement agreement silent on the issue. The settlement agreement clearly states its purpose is to settle the matter of ownership of all items of personal property. The parties were granted all personal property in their respective possession. No personal property falling within this category was itemized. Instead, the parties itemized items that were in the other’s possession or in joint possession that they wanted. As Appellant recognized in refusing to allow Appellee to have items of personal property in his possession that she had forgotten to itemize, he is not entitled to any items in Appellee’s possession that he forgot to itemize.

All personal property on the land therefore was in Appellee’s possession and granted to her under the terms of the settlement agreement. Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.