Summary 2008 WY 123

Summary of Decision issued October 10, 2008

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

Case Name: Alloway v. RT Capital, Inc.

Citation: 2008 WY 123

Docket Number: S-08-0042

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

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Larry W. Harrington, Harrington Law Firm, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant Alloway appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of RT Capital on an outstanding credit card account balance.
Alloway argued that summary judgment was improper because RT Capital supplied only a copy of the standard cardholder agreement rather than providing the original contract he signed. The problem with Alloway’s argument was that he admitted in his answer to the complaint that he entered into an agreement with Metris and used the credit card. He also did not assert in his affidavit that the cardholder agreement did not accurately reflect the terms of his account. Alloway also contested the summary judgment in favor of RT Capital because he did not have an agreement with them. The cardholder agreement provided the account could be sold, assigned or transferred without notice. Wyoming law is clear that when a contract states it is assignable, the Court will honor that term. Alloway contended that Capital’s representative, Herndon, did not have the personal knowledge necessary to provide the foundation for the credit card statements which established the balance due. The statements were attached to the affidavit provided by Herndon. The Court noted the statements were admissible under Rule 803(6) as a report kept in the course of regularly conducted business.

Holding: RT Capital presented a prima facie case in support of its motion for summary judgment. The affidavit contained all of the foundational requirements necessary to establish the admissibility of the statements under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Alloway did not come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing there were genuine issues of material fact. His assertions were general and conclusory. The district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of RT Capital.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/54oszm

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2008 WY 69

Summary of Decision issued June 19, 2008

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

Case Name: Comet Energy Services, LLC v. Powder River Oil & Gas Ventures, LLC

Citation: 2008 WY 69

Docket Number: S-07-0063

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Dan R. Price II, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Thomas F. Reese and Orintha E. Karns of Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Blade M. Pickett of Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, PC, Denver, Colorado.

Facts/Discussion: Comet appealed from the denial of its cross motion for summary judgment and from the award of summary judgment in favor of Powder River. The dispute was over the proper interpretation of an assignment of certain interests.
The dispute centered on the meaning of the term “leasehold estate” as used in the 1998 Assignment. The parties interpreted the term quite differently. The Court reiterated that they will construe contract language in the context within which it was written, looking to the surrounding circumstances, the subject matter, and the purpose of the agreement to ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the agreement was made. In cases requiring the interpretation of a contract, a summary judgment is appropriate only if the contract is clear and unambiguous. The meaning of terms and conditions and the intent of the parties generally are questions of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder. The parties disputed the effect, significance, and legitimacy of much of the evidence. The Court found it impossible to reasonably discern the intent of the parties by only looking within the four corners of the Assignment because the term “leasehold estate” is obscure in its meaning and because it could reasonably be interpreted to have more than one meaning.

Holding: The Court held that the district court improperly determined that summary judgment was appropriate under the facts of the case. The term “leasehold estate” as used in the 1998 assignment was ambiguous which gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact concerning the intent of the parties to the assignment.

Reversed and remanded.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5tz8sk .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2008 WY 68

Summary of Decision issued June 19, 2008

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

Case Name: Winship v. Gem City Bone & Joint, PC

Citation: 2008 WY 68

Docket Number: S-07-0246

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mark W. Gifford, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The case presented the issue of whether an attorney, who distributed the proceeds of a personal injury action without paying a medical provider’s bills after his client executed, with the attorney’s knowledge, an assignment of the proceeds to the provider is liable to the medical provider for the amount of those bills.
The district court interpreted the release in its first decision letter stating that the court could not interpret it as requiring Winship to pay Jackman’s medical obligations. The district court revisited the issue in its second decision letter and focused on the law of assignments. The release clearly indicated that Jackman who was the owner of the claim intended to transfer the proceeds to Gem City for payment of his medical bills. The Court stated it made no difference whether the language authorized or directed the obligor to honor the assignment as long as it indicated that the assignor intended to transfer his right to the assignee. The Court applied the rule that they give effect to the ordinary meaning of the language of an assignment and the precedent set forth in Montgomery, the Court concluded the release effected a valid assignment.
The next question was whether additional or different wording was required to obligate an attorney to honor his client’s assignment. The Court reviewed the cases relied upon and noted that they saw no reason why the language effecting an assignment must be more definite or specifically direct the obligor to honor the assignment when the obligor is the assignor’s attorney. As long as the intention to transfer the claim or the proceeds thereof is clear, the assignment is effective.

Holding: Mr. Jackman assigned his interest in the proceeds of his personal injury action to Gem City for payment of his medical bills. As obligor, Mr. Winship was required to honor that assignment. It was irrelevant that he had not entered into a direct contract with Gem City. An obligor who has notice of an assignment and fails to honor it is responsible to the assignee.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6lduqc .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]