Friday, March 09, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 36

Summary of Decision March 9, 2012

[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. 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: Marjorie E. Bedessem, Trustee of the Marjorie E. Bedessem Revocable Trust Agreement UTA Dated November 25, 2008 v. David P. Cunningham and Susan M. Cunningham

Docket Number: S-11-0127


Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): M. Gregory Weisz of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Steven F. Freudenthal of Freudenthal & Bonds, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Date of Decision: March 9, 2012

Facts: Marjorie Bedessem (Bedessem), as trustee of her revocable trust, filed a complaint against David and Susan Cunningham (Cunninghams), seeking enforcement of an easement across the Cunningham property to access the Bedessem property. Bedessem claimed an implied access easement or, in the alternative, access pursuant to the restrictive covenants applicable to both properties. The district court found no evidence of an implied easement and that the restrictive covenants authorized only the Architectural Control Committee to sue for enforcement of the covenants. On those grounds it granted Cunninghams’ summary judgment motion.

Issues: On appeal, Bedessem did not challenge the district court’s finding on the implied easement claim and presented only the following issue: Whether the District Court erred when it ruled that Plaintiff did not have standing to enforce a restrictive covenant against Defendants.

Holdings: The Covenants applicable to the Large Tracts grant the Architectural Control Committee the sole right to enforce the Covenants, and the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

No comments:

Check out our tags in a cloud (from Wordle)!