Summary of Decision November 21, 2012
Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed in part. Affirmed in part.
Case Name: ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, and TERESA SHELTON, individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989 v. ROBERT REDLAND, Individually, ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY and MIKE KIMSEY and ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002, and as Successor Trustee of the Irene Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002.
ROBERT REDLAND v. ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, ROALENE McCARTHY, and TERESA SHELTON, individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989 and SHARON REDLAND.
ROALENE McCARTHY v. ROBERT REDLAND, Individually, ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY and MIKE KIMSEY.
Docket Number: S-12-0010, S-12-0011, S-12-0012
Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County, Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge.
Representing Appellants/Appellees Rolly, Kendrick, Sharon and Debbie Redland and Teresa Shelton: S. Joseph Darrah of Darrah Law Office, P.C., Powell, WY.
Representing Appellees/Appellants Robert Redland and Roalene McCarthy: J. Kenneth Barbe II of Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C., Casper, WY; Ronald P. Jurovich, Thermopolis, WY; and Steve C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, WY.
No appearance entered for Appellees Lisa and Mike Kimsey in S-12-0010 and S-12-0012.
No appearance entered for Appellees Roalene McCarthy and Teresa Shelton in S-12-011.
Date of Decision: November 21, 2012
Facts: These consolidated appeals stem from the Redland family’s dispute over ranch property and operations. Appeals numbered S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 relate to real property that some of the Redland children claim their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust. The district court granted Robert Redland partial summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by the statute of frauds, and the Redland Children appealed that summary judgment order.
Following the entry of partial summary judgment, a bench trial was held on the remaining issues. Among the issues tried were claims for unjust enrichment by the two Redland sons, Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland, against Robert Redland for improvements that they had made to the disputed trust properties. The trial court ruled against Robert Redland on the unjust enrichment claims and awarded damages to both Rolly and Kendrick Redland. The trial court also ruled against Robert Redland on his counterclaim against Kendrick Redland, and his wife, Sharon, for a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland’s Angus cattle operation. In Appeal No. S-12-0011, the father appealed the trial court’s rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.
Issues: Appeals S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 are both appeals from the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment. In S-12-0010, which was filed by three of the Redland children, Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland and Teresa Redland Shelton, the following issues are presented for this Court’s review:
1. Whether the District Court erred when it determined the [S]tatute of Frauds barred Appellants’ claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance after Appellants had fully performed the agreement?
2. Whether the District Court erred when it determined that the applicable statute of limitations barred Appellants’ claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance when there was no evidence that Appellants knew or should have known that the Agreement was breached before the limitations period expired?
In Appeal S-12-0012, Roalene Redland McCarthy, in a separately filed appeal from the summary judgment ruling, states the issues differently but presents essentially the same questions for our review:
ISSUE I: For purposes of the Statute of Limitations, when did the cause of action for specific performance accrue?
ISSUE II: Whether full performance by the Appellant of a Trust Agreement presented a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment on the basis of the Statue of Frauds.
ISSUE III: Did the discovery of a breach present a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment for filing outside the Statute of Limitations?
ISSUE IV: Where one of seven parties to a Trust Agreement breached the contract, was it error in applying the “discovery rule” for the District Court to impute to Appellant what that court apparently concluded was either known or should have been known by others of the non-breaching contracting parties?
In Appeal S-12-0011, Robert Redland appeals the district court’s rulings following a bench trial and presents the following issues on appeal:
A. Issues Related to Unjust Enrichment
1. Did the trial court err when it found that Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland had proven the elements of unjust enrichment?
2. If Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland proved the elements of unjust enrichment, did the trial court err in the amount of the damages awarded?
B. Issues Related to Redland Angus
1. Did the Court err when it admitted Plaintiff’s Exhibit 105 redacting Plaintiff's sticky note which said “part of bull sale[?]”
2. Did the Court err when it found that Robert Redland is not and was not a partner in Redland Angus?
Holdings: Disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the questions of whether the Redland Children’s property claims were barred by the statute of limitations or the statute of frauds, and the Court therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for a trial on those claims. The Court found no clear error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings on the unjust enrichment claims and Redland Angus partnership claims, and affirmed those rulings.
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]
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Summary of Decision November 21, 2012