Summary 2013 WY 24

Summary of Decision February 26, 2013
Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: NATHAN R. BAKER and BRYNER FARMS, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company v. DAVID SPEAKS and ELIZABETH SPEAKS

Docket Number: S-12-0105

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

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge.

Representing Appellant: David P. McCarthy of David P. McCarthy, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Paula A. Fleck and Susan L. Combs of Holland & Hart, LLP, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Fleck.

Date of Decision: February 26, 2013

Facts: While a lawsuit by Appellees David and Elizabeth Speaks was pending against Rosemary and Byron Baker, the Bakers transferred two parcels of real property to their son Nathan. The original case resulted in a judgment against Byron, but a dismissal of the claims against Rosemary. Appellees’ judgment against Byron was upheld on appeal. After learning of the decision in that case, Nathan Baker transferred the properties to a limited liability company he and his family controlled. Appellees filed this case under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and its successor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. While the case was pending, the limited liability company transferred the two pieces of property to trusts controlled by Rosemary Baker. Appellees moved for summary judgment. The District Court found that all of the conveyances were fraudulent and granted summary judgment permitting execution on the properties.

Issues: 1. Did Appellees make the required prima facie showing that they were entitled to execute on the property in question under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act?

2. Are the Appellants judicially stopped from arguing that Rosemary Baker owned interest in the real property involved in this case?

Holdings: Although the district court correctly found the conveyances to be fraudulent, Appellees failed to make the required prima facie showing that the properties were subject to execution on a judgment against Byron Baker alone, and accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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 2013 WY 23

Summary of Decision February 22, 2013


Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: NICOLLE HEIKKILA, AN EMPLOYEE OF SIGNAL MOUNTAIN LODGE v. SIGNAL MOUNTAIN LODGE

Docket Number: S-12-0137

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

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

Representing Appellant: Sky D. Phifer, Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: George Santini, Ross, Ross, & Santini, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: February 22, 2013

Facts: The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) determined that Nicolle Heikkila, the appellant, suffered a compensable injury while employed by Signal Mountain Lodge. The lodge filed an objection to that determination and requested a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The appellant filed a motion to dismiss that objection on the grounds that the objection had been improperly filed. The OAH denied that motion and determined that the appellant had not suffered a compensable injury. The appellant filed a petition for review to the district court, arguing that her motion to dismiss was improperly denied. The district court affirmed the decision of the OAH.

Issues: Did Signal Mountain Lodge properly file an objection to the Division’s Final Determination of Compensability?

Holdings: Signal Mountain Lodge objected to the Division’s Final Determination of Compensability regarding an injury supposedly suffered by the appellant. The appellant argued that the objection was invalid because Signal Mountain Lodge is not a proper party to the action. The Court disagreed. Signal Mountain Lodge is the identified employer and paid the necessary contributions under the Act. The Court 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 2013 WY 22

Summary of Decision February 21, 2013

Order of Disbarment

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. RICHARD GRANT SCHNEEBECK, WSB #5-2395,

Docket Number: D-13-0002

Follow this link to access the Report and Recommendation for Disbarment:
URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Date of Order: February 21, 2013

This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Disbarment,” filed herein January 9, 2013 by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. The Court, after a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed, and adopted by the Court. It is, therefore,

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation for Disbarment, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, effective this date, the Respondent, Richard Grant Schneebeck, shall be, and hereby is, disbarred from the practice of law in this state; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Richard Grant Schneebeck shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00, representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay an administrative fee of $500.00. Respondent shall pay the total amount of $550.00 to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before April 1, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Richard Grant Schneebeck shall make restitution of $10,077.23 to his former law firm; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with Section 22 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar. That Section governs the duties of disbarred and suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(a)(iv) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order of Disbarment, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Disbarment, shall be published in the Pacific Reporter; and it is Further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Disbarment, along with the Report and Recommendation for Disbarment, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of the Order of Disbarment to be served upon the Respondent, Richard Grant Schneebeck; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit a copy of this Order of Disbarment to members of the Board of Professional Responsibility, and the clerks of the appropriate courts of the State of Wyoming.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MARILYN S. KITE
Chief Justice

Summary 2013 WY 21

Summary of Decision February 21, 2013

Order of Public Censure

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. PHILIP M. KLEINSMITH SR., WSB #5-2952

Docket Number: D-13-0003

Follow this link to access the Report and Recommendation for Reciprocal Order of Public Censure:
URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Date of Order: February 21, 2013

This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Reciprocal Order of Public Censure,” filed herein January 9, 2013, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. The Court, after a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that Respondent Philip M. Kleinsmith, Sr. should be publicly censured pursuant to Section 20 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar (Reciprocal discipline). It is, therefore,

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation for Reciprocal Order of Public Censure, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Philip M. Kleinsmith, Sr. is hereby publicly censured for his conduct, which is described in the attached pleadings from the Utah disciplinary matter involving Mr. Kleinsmith. Those pleadings are attached hereto and incorporated herein; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Mr. Kleinsmith shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00, representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative fee of $500.00. Mr. Kleinsmith shall pay the total amount of $550.00 to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before April 1, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated “Report and Recommendation for Reciprocal Order of Public Censure” and the Utah disciplinary pleadings, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(a)(iv) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated “Report and Recommendation for Reciprocal Order of Public Censure” and the Utah disciplinary pleadings, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure to be served upon Respondent Philip M. Kleinsmith, Sr.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MARILYN S. KITE
Chief Justice

Summary 2013 WY 20

Summary of Decision February 20, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LNP, A Minor Child: KC v. CC and EC

Docket Number: S-12-0155

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): John M. Burman, Director, and Christopher Sherwood, Student Intern, University of Wyoming, College of Law Legal Services Program. Argument by Mr. Sherwood.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Aaron J. Lyttle, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Lyttle.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2013

Facts: Appellant, KC, (“Mother”), challenges the district court’s decision to appoint CC and his wife, EC, (“Grandparents”), as permanent guardians for Mother’s daughter, LNP. Mother contends the guardianship proceedings were subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and that the district court violated the provisions of the Act in establishing a plenary guardianship. Mother also contends the district court erred in concluding, under the ICWA, that returning LNP to Mother would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage.

Issues: Mother presents the following issues:

1. Whether the district court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act’s ten day notice requirement.

2. Whether the district court received testimony from a “qualified expert witness” as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

3. Whether the district court received clear and convincing evidence that shows LNP’s return to the Appellant would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Grandparents state the issues in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: Based upon the facts discussed in the full opinion, the Court did not find reversible 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 2013 WY 19

Summary of Decision February 14, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: SHIRLEY R. CASE v. SINK & RISE, INC., a Wyoming corporation; CALE CASE, an individual; GUION and DARLA NIGHTINGALE, individuals; and TANGEMANN BENEDICT CORP., a Wyoming corporation.

Docket Number: S-12-0111

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

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Glenn M. Ford, Wilson, WY; and Amy Wallace Potter, Jackson, WY. Argument by Mr. Ford.

Representing Appellees: J. Denny Moffett & Associates, P.C., and Heather Noble, Jackson, WY for Appellee Sink & Rise, Inc. Argument by Mr. Moffett.

Scott W. Meier, Lucas Buckley, and Marianne K. Shanor of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, WY for Appellees Cale Case, Guion and Darla Nightingale, and Tangemann Benedict Corp. Argument by Mr. Meier.

Date of Decision: February 14, 2013

Facts: This case involved a dispute over corporate action during a shareholder meeting of Appellee Sink & Rise, Inc., (Sink & Rise) a Wyoming corporation. Appellee James Caleb Case (Cale Case) was the only shareholder present at the meeting. He concluded that a quorum existed and thus voted on and passed several resolutions. Cale Case also elected himself and another shareholder as the directors of the corporation, and replaced his estranged wife, Appellant Shirley Case, as the corporation’s secretary.

Shirley Case took issue with her estranged husband’s actions during the shareholder meeting and filed a complaint in district court to set aside the corporate action that occurred at the shareholder meeting. After trial, the court held that joint stock held by Cale Case and Shirley Case, as husband and wife as tenants by the entirety with rights of survivorship, were “entitled to vote” during the shareholder meeting and could thus be counted for quorum purposes, although they were not voted to pass the resolutions. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the resolutions were passed with requisite authority and thus they were not set aside after trial. This appeal followed.

Issues: Shirley Case presents two issues for our consideration:

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in finding that the transactions contemplated by Sink & Rise Shareholder Resolutions 1, 2, and 3 and Board of Director Resolutions 1, 2, and 3were not void and ultra vires as directors’ conflicting interest transactions under W. S. § 17-16-860, et. Seq.?

2. Did the trial court commit reversible error in finding that the jointly held stock held by James Caleb Case and Shirley Case could be counted for purposes of a quorum of shareholders in the absence of either personal attendance or a proxy from both owners?

Holdings: The Court affirmed the district court’s decision holding that the 16 shares of stock co-owned by Cale Case and Shirley Case as husband and wife were “entitled to vote” pursuant to the bylaws of Sink & Rise. The district court was correct in its characterization of Cale Case and Shirley Case holding the stock as tenants by the entirety. Because of the stock’s representation in person at the shareholder meeting, the stock could be counted for quorum purposes. Consequently, the resolutions of the May 24, 2011 meeting were passed with requisite authority.

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 2013 WY 15

Summary of Decision February 6, 2013


Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE INTEREST OF RB, STATE OF WYOMING, by and through the office of the PARK COUNTY ATTORNEY v. WYOMING STATE HOSPITAL and RB

Docket Number: S-12-0141

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

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Appellant: William K. Struemke, Deputy Park County Attorney, Park County Attorney’s Office, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Wyoming State Hospital: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General.

Representing Appellee RB: No appearance

Date of Decision: February 6, 2013

Facts: The Fifth Judicial Court involuntarily hospitalized RB, a middle-aged man, at the Wyoming State Hospital after a period of emergency detention at West Park Hospital in Cody, Wyoming. He was detoxified of opiates and other controlled substances and eventually stabilized on psychotropic medications. The State Hospital gave notice that it intended to discharge RB, and the Park County Attorney’s Office filed an objection with the district court, claiming a right to a hearing on the merits of the State Hospital’s decision. The district court found that Park County had no statutory right to object to RB’s discharge, and therefore had no standing to do so.

Issues: Does a county attorney have authority to object to a patient’s discharge from involuntary civil commitment under Chapter 10 of Title 25 of the Wyoming Statutes?

Holdings: The Court found that the involuntary hospitalization statutes do not provide authority for a county attorney to object to the proposed discharge of a patient from involuntary civil commitment, and therefore 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 2013 WY 14

Summary of Decision February 1, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court.

Case Name: MAX MAXFIELD, in his individual capacity v. STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0084

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

Certified Questions from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Bradley T. Cave, P.C., Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 1, 2013

Facts: Max Maxfield, the Secretary of State for the State of Wyoming, filed a declaratory judgment action in district court challenging the constitutionality of Wyoming’s term limit statute. The State responded, asserting among other claims, that Mr. Maxfield’s complaint did not present a justiciable controversy and, in any event, the statute was constitutional. The Court accepted certification of the issues from the district court.

Certified Questions: The district court certified the following questions to this Court:

1. To proceed under the Wyoming Declaratory Judgment Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-37-101 through 1-37-115, Mr. Maxfield must present a justiciable controversy. To do so, he must show existing and genuine rights or interests, not theoretical ones. Does this case present a justiciable controversy?

2. Is the term limit law for statewide elected officials (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-5-103(a)(i)), constitutional and enforceable, or are the qualifications provided by the Wyoming Constitution exclusive?

Holdings: Answering the first certified question, the Court held that Mr. Maxfield has presented a justiciable controversy. Answering the second certified question, the Court held that § 22-5-103(a)(i), the term limit law for statewide elected officials, is unconstitutional with respect to the offices of secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction and the qualifications for those offices provided by the Wyoming Constitution are exclusive.

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]