Summary 2012 WY 104

Summary of Decision July 31, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JAMES HENRY and BARBARA HENRY, Husband and Wife, v. GEORGE BORUSHKO and LUCILLE BORUSHKO, Husband and Wife

Docket Number: S-12-0028

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellants: Pro Se

Representing Appellees: William L. Miller, Miller & Fasse, P.C., Riverton, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 31, 2012

Facts: Appellants, James and Barbara Henry, and Appellees, George and Lucille Borushko, own adjoining properties in Fremont County, Wyoming. An irrigation canal separates the properties. In 2009, a dispute developed over the boundary between their properties. The Borushkos asserted that the boundary was the centerline of the irrigation canal. The Henrys claimed that it was at the fence along the north bank of the canal. Litigation ensued. The district court ruled in favor of the Borushkos. The Henrys appealed. Affirmed.

Issues: The issue is whether the deed to the Borushkos’ property should be interpreted to establish the property boundary at the centerline of the canal or along the fence on the north bank of the canal. A secondary issue, raised by the Borushkos, is whether there was reasonable cause for this appeal.

Holdings: The Court concluded that the Henrys’ conveyance of property bordering on the canal must be presumed to carry title to the center of the canal, and the specification of the acreage of the property was not sufficient evidence to defeat that presumption. The Court found no error in the district court’s decision. Having decided to affirm the district court’s ruling, The Court turned to the Borushkos’ contention that they should be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees because there was no reasonable cause for this appeal. The Court has the authority to award such fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05, but did not do so in this case. The Henrys’ contention that the recitation of acreage in the deed was significant was not without merit. The Court considered carefully before determining that the recitation was insufficient to rebut the presumption that the reference to the canal meant the center of the canal. The Court could not say that the Henrys’ appeal was unreasonable, and declined to award attorneys’ fees. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 103

Summary of Decision July 31, 2012

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: BOWERS OIL AND GAS, INC., a Colorado corporation, v. DCP DOUGLAS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and KINDER MORGAN OPERATING, L.P. “A”, a Delaware limited partnership

Docket Number: S-11-0233

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Loyd E. Smith of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellees: James R. Belcher & Boomgaarden, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 31, 2012

Facts: Bowers Oil and Gas, Inc. (BOG) entered into a Gas Purchase Contract with Kinder Morgan Operating, L.P. (Kinder Morgan), pursuant to which Kinder Morgan agreed to purchase coal bed methane gas from certain of BOG’s wells. Kinder Morgan transferred its interest in the Contract, and Kinder Morgan’s successor eventually terminated the Contract pursuant to a provision that allowed either party to terminate if in the terminating party’s sole opinion, the sale or purchase of the gas became unprofitable or uneconomical. BOG thereafter filed a complaint in district court asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following a bench trial, the district court found no contract breach or covenant breach and ruled in favor of Kinder Morgan and its successor. The Court affirmed.

Issues: BOG presented the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that Appellees did not breach the Gas Purchase Contract?

A) Whether the trial court erred in ruling that Appellees were excused from performance of the Gas Purchase Contract on the basis that the Contract became uneconomical pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Contract?

2. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Appellees did not breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Holdings: The Court found no breach of contract in MEG’s removal of the pipelines connecting BOG to the gas gathering system and that DCP properly terminated the Gas Purchase Contract for economic cause. The Court further found no clear error in the district court’s rejection of BOG’s claim for breach of the implied covenant and fair dealing. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 102

Summary of Decision July 30, 2012


Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: JERELE CRAIG COTHREN, JR., v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-11-0240

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan G. O’Brien, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 30, 2012

Facts: The appellant, Jerele Craig Cothren, Jr., currently faces four separate sentences from three courts for unrelated crimes. The most recent sentence, and the one upon which the appellant’s appeal is based, required that the appellant serve his term of incarceration concurrent with a sentence for which the appellant is presently incarcerated, as well as consecutive to a probationary period that has yet to begin. Because it was impossible to meet both these requirements, and because the sentence as pronounced would require the period of incarceration to be interrupted by a period of probation, the sentence is illegal. The Court remanded to the district court for resentencing.

Issues: Is the sentence at issue an illegal sentence?

Holdings: The sentence under appeal was illegal because it was impossible to fulfill, and because it resulted in a period of incarceration interrupted by a period of probation. The Court reversed and remanded to the district court for imposition of a legal sentence.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 101

Summary of Decision July 25, 2012

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: PATRICK R. ESPINOZA v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Docket Number: S-11-0291

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellant: R. Michael Vang of Fleener & Vang LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristin M. Nuss, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 25, 2012

Facts: After stopping Patrick R. Espinosa for failing to maintain a single lane of travel while driving on Interstate 80 (I-80) in Laramie, Wyoming, an Albany County Sheriff’s deputy arrested Mr. Espinoza for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) suspended Mr. Espinoza’s driver’s license, and he objected. At the contested case hearing, Mr. Espinoza claimed the deputy was not justified in stopping him. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension, and the district court affirmed. The Court concluded the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for a traffic violation and affirmed.

Issues: The issue presented for the Court’s review was whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for violating Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-209 (LexisNexis 2011), which requires vehicles be driven “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane” of traffic.

Holdings: Mr. Espinoza claimed the deputy’s report improperly stated that the lane violations occurred at milepost 312 when milepost 312 is actually further down the highway. The deputy’s report stated: “I noted that in the 312 milepost, the pickup went across the centerline then drifted back across the right lane and across the fog line before regaining a single lane of travel.” The Court did not read the deputy’s report as stating that the violations occurred precisely at milepost 312. There is obviously a typographical error when it states “in the 312 milepost.” The lane breaches occurred within close proximity milepost 312, and a reasonable interpretation of the report is that the deputy was simply referencing the nearby milepost. Moreover, the lane violations are shown on the DVD, so the fact that the deputy may have made a slight mistake in locating them was largely irrelevant. The Court concluded that the record contained substantial evidence that the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for failing to maintain his lane of travel in violation of § 31-5-209. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 100

Summary of Decision July 23, 2012

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: KMO, DMO, CMO, and AKO, Minor Children PRG, v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Docket Number: S-11-0225

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Cindi Wood, Casper, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Sue Chatfield, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Guardian ad Litem: Cynthia K. Sweet, Casper, WY.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2012

Facts: PRG (Father) appealed the district court’s order following a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his four minor children. Father contended that the district court erred when it refused to use his proposed jury verdict form. He also claimed that the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS) presented insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights and challenged the district court’s denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Issues: Father presented three issues for the Court’s consideration:

I. Did the district court err in refusing [Father’s] proposed Jury Verdict Form requiring the jury to consider the father’s fitness in relation to each minor child.

II. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to allow the [Father’s] parental rights to be terminated as to the four minor children at issue.

III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant [Father’s] Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials, W.R.C.P. Rule 50(a).

Holdings: The special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Father’s proposed verdict form. DFS presented sufficient evidence for this matter to be submitted to the jury and clear and convincing evidence supported the jury’s verdict and the district court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his four minor children. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 99

Summary of Decision July 23, 2012

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: KMO, DMO, CMO, AKO, DKO, MTO, ABO, EEO, and JBO, Minor Children HJO, aka HJK, v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Docket Number: S-11-0224

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Donald Lee Tolin of Law Offices of Donald Tolin, Casper, WY

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; and Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Kucera

Guardian ad Litem: Cynthia K. Sweet, Casper, WY.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2012

Facts: HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed the district court’s order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which sets out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors.

Issues: Mother presented four issues for the Court’s consideration:

I. Whether the trial court record contains sufficient clear and convincing evidence for the jury to find that the statutory requirements were satisfied for termination of parental rights of Mother as to present unfitness of Mother at the time of trial pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v).

II. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by not requiring the jury to make a finding on the verdict form as to all of the required statutory elements for termination of parental rights under Claim II pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v) as to each child and each parent separately.

III. Whether Mother’s due process and equal protection rights under the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution were violated because of the use of the lower burden of proof standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for termination of parental rights instead of the higher burden of proof standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

IV. Whether there was reversible error because of cumulative errors made throughout the termination of parental rights proceedings, thereby violating Mother’s procedural and substantive due process.

Holdings: The Court applied their strict scrutiny standard of review to this termination proceeding and found no reversible error. The district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to her nine children pursuant to § 14-2-309(a)(v) was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Mother’s special verdict form. The district court’s use of the “clear and convincing” standard of proof comported with constitutional law principles and did not violate Mother’s due process or equal protection rights. Finally, finding no errors by the district court, the Court did not reach the question of cumulative error. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 98

Summary of Decision July 19, 2012

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOSHUA JORGEN HANSON v. MELANIE SMITH BELVEAL, f/n/a MELANIE ANN HANSON

Docket Number: S-11-0130, S-11-0131

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L. Parsons, Attorneys at Law, Pinedale, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Sky D. Phifer of Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 19, 2012

Facts: These combined appeals arose out of post-divorce proceedings. In No. S-11-0130, Father appealed the district court’s order denying his petition to modify the parties’ divorce decree, which granted mother primary physical custody of their minor child, and to grant him primary physical custody of their child. In No. S-11-0131, Father appealed the district court’s order that he pay Mother $4,680 for attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred in defending Father’s petition to modify custody.

Issues: Father presented five issues for our review, which the Court has rephrased for the sake of simplicity as follows:

I. Whether the district court erred in finding unconstitutional a clause in the Stipulated Divorce Decree which provided that a move out of state by either party constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to seek a modification of custody.

II. Whether the district court erred in finding there had not been a material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody

III. Whether the district court erred in finding that a modification of custody would not be in the best interests of the child.

IV. Whether the district court reversibly erred in admitting hearsay statements of the child’s treating physician and excluding certified copies of the criminal convictions of Mother’s brother and her current spouse.

V. Whether the district court erred in awarding Mother reasonable attorney fees.

Holdings: The clause in the parties’ divorce decree providing that either parties’ relocation outside Wyoming would constitute a material change of circumstances justifying consideration of custody modification was invalid as speculative, and the district court properly disregarded the provision. The Court further found Father was not prejudiced by the appealed evidentiary rulings, and found no clear error in the court’s determination that Father had not proven a material change of circumstances warranting a custody modification. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees and cost. Affirmed.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 97

Summary of Decision July 18, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: GEORGE M. and GERALDINE E. ZEIMENS v. CITY OF TORRINGTON, a Municipal Corporation; and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GOSHEN

Docket Number: S-11-0266

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Karen Budd Falen and Brandon L. Jensen, Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jensen.

Representing Appellees: Andrew F. Sears, Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming; Loyd E. Smith, Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Smith.

Date of Decision: July 18, 2012

Facts: Appellants, George and Geraldine Zeimens, contended that the right-of-way for Sheep Creek Road is sixty-six feet wide. If correct, an electric power line built by the City of Torrington is located, in part, outside of the right-of-way and on the Zeimens’ property. Torrington and Goshen County contended that the right-of-way is eighty feet wide, and that the electric power line is located entirely within the right-of-way. Unable to resolve their differences, the Zeimens filed suit against the City and the County. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the right-of-way is eighty feet wide, and entered judgment in favor of Torrington and the County. The Zeimens appealed that judgment.

Issues: The Zeimens presented these two issues:

Whether the board of county commissioners failed to make certain and definite the width ascribed to Goshen County Road 72.

Whether the width of the right-of-way for Goshen County Road 72 is limited to that width as actually laid out and opened to public travel, or sixty-six feet.

The City and the County disagreed with this statement of the issues, and asserted that the only issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly ruled that Sheep Creek Road is eighty feet wide, thereby precluding the Zeimens’ claims for taking and trespass.

Holdings: The Court found no error in the district court’s legal conclusions. The Court affirmed the judgment against the Zeimens and in favor of the City of Torrington and County of Goshen.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 96

Summary of Decision July 12, 2012

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. The Court affirmed the district court’s order and judgment with the exception that the Court vacated the costs awarded for legal research.

Case Name: WILLIAM R. FIX v. SOUTH WILDERNESS RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Wyoming unincorporated non-profit association and FRANK FORELLE.

Docket Number: S 11 0260
URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable James L. Radda, Judge.

Representing Appellant: William R. Fix, William R. Fix, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Association: Mathew E. Turner of Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Frank Forelle: No appearance.
Date of Decision: July 12, 2012

Facts: The South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) filed an action against William R. Fix to recover $2,500 in assessments he allegedly owed as a lot owner in the South Wilderness Ranches Subdivision. The HOA also sought interest and attorney fees. Mr. Fix denied that he owed the assessments and filed a counterclaim seeking a judicial determination that the covenants pursuant to which the assessments were to be paid were null and void. In the alternative, he sought damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the HOA failed to enforce the covenants and allowed his neighbor to build a fence that violated the covenants.

After summary judgment proceedings, the district court entered an order granting judgment in favor of the HOA on its claim for the assessments, interest and attorney fees. Subsequently, the court severed Mr. Fix’s counterclaim from the rest of the case and entered judgment for the HOA on its complaint in the amount of the $2,500 assessments, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs, for a total judgment of $22,077.38.

Mr. Fix appealed, claiming the district court erred in granting summary judgment against him on the HOA’s complaint and severing his counterclaim. He also claimed the attorney fees and costs awarded were excessive.

Issues: Mr. Fix, appearing pro se, presented the issues for the Court’s determination as follows:

I. The [district] court erred in granting summary judgment against the homeowner.

II. The [district] court awarded attorney fees that are excessive.

III. The severance ordered by the [district] court sua sponte constitutes error.

IV. The costs awarded by the [district] court are not permitted.

The HOA asserted the district court rulings were proper and sought leave to submit evidence of its fees, costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in defending the appeal.
Holdings: The Court affirmed the district court’s order and judgment with the exception that the Court vacated the costs awarded for legal research.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 95

Summary of Decision July 3, 2012

Order of Interim Suspension

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. MIA MIKESELL SHIFRAR

Docket Number: D‑12‑0005

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Date of Order: July 3, 2012
Pursuant to Section 17 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Bar Counsel for the Wyoming State Bar filed, on June 11, 2012, a “Petition for Interim Suspension of Attorney.” The Court, after a careful review of the Petition for Interim Suspension, the “Affidavit of Bar Counsel in Support of Petition for Interim Suspension of Attorney,” and “Bar Counsel’s Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Petition for Interim Suspension of Attorney,” concludes that the petition for interim suspension should be granted and that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law pending resolution of the formal charge that has been, or will be, filed against her. See Section 17(c) (“Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of an order of interim suspension, Bar Counsel shall file a formal charge.”) It is, therefore,
ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, effective July 10, 2012, the Respondent, Mia Mikesell Shifrar, shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law, pending final resolution of the formal charge that has been, or will be, filed against her.

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

[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]

Summary 2012 WY 94

Summary of Decision July 3, 2012


Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS OF: RYAN DORMAN, AN EMPLOYEE OF MELEHES BROTHERS, INC., v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-11-0292

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Sean W. Scoggin of McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General
Date of Decision: July 3, 2012
Facts: This appeal arises out of Ryan Dorman’s petition for an extension of his worker’s compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne, Wyoming, to obtain medical care. The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied those benefits, and that denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the district court.

Issues: Ryan Dorman (Dorman) presented the following issues on appeal:

I. Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision and affirmation thereof by the district court, that Mr. Dorman is not entitled to receive additional temporary total disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, as well as not supported by the substantial evidence presented at the hearing and case law.

II. Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision and affirmation thereof by the district court that Mr. Dorman is not entitled to reimbursement for travel to and from visits with Dr. Beer was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the substantial evidence presented at the hearing and case law.

Holdings: The OAH conclusion that Dorman had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to extended TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. Likewise, its conclusion that Dorman had not met his burden of showing that he was seeking treatment from the closest available health care provider and was thus entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses was also supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Affirmed.

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

[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]