Summary 2013 WY 82

Summary of Decision July 10, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: JERRY HERLING v. WYOMING MACHINERY CO., a Wyoming corporation

Docket Number: S-12-0227

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx
>
Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellant: Carissa D. Mobley and Cameron S. Walker of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Mobley.

Representing Appellee: Timothy M. Stubson of Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 10, 2013

Facts: This case involves a complicated series of events that have so far led to litigation in as many as three Wyoming district courts, a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, a bankruptcy proceeding in California, and this appeal. Jerry Herling Construction, Inc. (“JHCI”) contracted with Wyoming Machinery for rental and service of earthmoving equipment, but defaulted on the payments due under the agreement. Wyoming Machinery seeks to enforce personal guaranties of JHCI’s performance against Jerry Herling, JHCI’s CEO. Herling argues that an assignment of JHCI’s retainage account and a settlement between other parties released him from his guaranties.

Issues: Did JHCI’s assignment of retainage it claimed to be owed by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. or an oral promise or representation by an employee of Wyoming Machinery release Jerry Herling from personal guaranties of JHCI’s performance? Did a settlement agreement between Tetra Tech and Wyoming Machinery release Jerry Herling from personal liability on his guaranties? Were there genuine issues of material fact regarding the proper amount of the judgment to which Wyoming Machinery was entitled against Mr. Herling?

Holdings: We agree with the trial court that Wyoming Machinery was entitled to judgment against Herling on his guaranties as a matter of law, but we find that there are genuine issues of material facts as to the correct amount of the judgment, and we therefore reverse and remand 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 54

Summary of Decision May 8, 2013


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Answered in the Negative.

Case Name: In re: RALPH GIFFORD and BETTY J. GIFFORD, Debtors, GARY A. BARNEY, TRUSTEE v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., its assigns and successors.

Docket Number: S-12-0177

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

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming, the Honorable Peter J. McNiff, Judge

Representing Appellant: Bradley T. Hunsicker and Stephen R. Winship of Winship and Winship, P.C., Casper, WY. Argument by Mr. Hunsicker.

Representing Appellee: Thomas M. Hefferon of Goodwin Proctor LLP, Washington, D.C.; and James R. Belcher of Belcher & Boomgaarden LLP, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Hefferon.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2013

Facts: The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming certified a question to this Court concerning the effect of two Wyoming statutes on a debtor’s mortgage. Specifically, the bankruptcy court asks whether the mortgage must comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 34-2-123.

Issues: The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming certified the following question to this Court:

Whether the mortgage must comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 34-2-123?

Holdings: The Court answered the question in the negative. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 123 are notice statutes intended to protect third parties from conflicting claims of a principal and agent. The Mortgage at issue in this case was not required to comply with Sections 122 and 123 because a) the recorded assignment of the Mortgage did not identify the grantee as acting in a representative capacity; and b) there were no conflicting claims of a principal and agent from which a third party would require protection.

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 116

Summary of Decision September 5, 2012

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MARK D. BRODERICK v. WYO CENTRAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION        

Docket Number: S-12-0021

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Stephen R. Winship of Winship & Winship, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Thomas M. Hogan, Attorney at Law, Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: September 5, 2012

Facts: In 2005, the Wyo Central Federal Credit Union (Credit Union) filed an action in state district court against Mark Broderick (Broderick) seeking judgment and foreclosure on a note and mortgage on which Broderick had defaulted.  Broderick immediately filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which stayed the Credit Union’s state court action.   Following the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings, which cured Broderick’s original default under the note and mortgage but did not discharge the debt, Broderick again defaulted on the note.  In 2010, the Credit Union amended its original complaint and again sought judgment and foreclosure on its note and mortgage.  The district court granted the Credit Union summary judgment both on the amount the Credit Union demanded as due and owing under the note and on the attorney fees and costs it requested pursuant to the mortgage enforcement terms.  Affirmed.

Issues:  Broderick presents the following issues on appeal, all of them relating to the award of attorney fees and costs:

1.         Whether the determination by a state court of an oversecured creditor’s attorney fees incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the Preemption Doctrine?

2.         Whether Appellee should be denied its attorney fees by its failure to submit these fees to the Bankruptcy Court for approval?

3.         Whether Appellee proved its damages with a reasonable degree of certainty?

 

Holdings: The district court acted within its discretion in its award of fees and costs to the Credit Union, and its order did not violate bankruptcy law or procedure.  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 2008 WY 122

Summary of Decision issued October 9, 2008

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

Case Name: Catamount Construction v. Timmis Enterprises

Citation: 2008 WY 122

Docket Number: S-08-0023

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Raymond W. Martin of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Julie Nye Tiedeken of McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: General contractor Catamount filed suit against several of its subcontractors, alleging defective work on a house in Cheyenne. The subcontractors filed motions to dismiss, asserting that Catamount had no standing to maintain its suit because it was defunct as the result of bankruptcy. The district court granted the subcontractors’ motions.

Standing: One of the primary cases that the district court relied upon in reaching its decision was Liberty Trust Co. Employees Profit Sharing Trust v. Holt. The federal district court considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 corporate debtor had an existence or life outside the bankruptcy estate. NLRB v. Better Building Supply Corp. reached the opposite conclusion and stated that a corporation is not entitled to discharge its debt in a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7. The Court agreed with NLRB and others to state that corporate existence is a matter of state law. Bankruptcy does nothing to change the existence of a corporation. Even if the bankruptcy in the instant case had triggered a de facto dissolution of the corporation and even though Catamount had been administratively dissolved by the Wyoming Secretary of State, it could still sue and be sued.
Justiciable Controversy: There must be a violation of a genuine, existing right; the Court will not issue advisory opinions addressing future speculative matters. Catamount claims that its subcontractors including Crayton are ultimately responsible for the Steeles’ damages if they are proven.

Holding: The Court concluded that corporate existence was a matter of state law and under Wyoming law a dissolved corporation may sue and be sued. Therefore Catamount has standing to maintain their action.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3ppxa6

[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 48

Summary of Decision issued April 22, 2008

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

Case Name: Drake v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 48

Docket Number: S-07-0092

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; and Sylvia Lee Hackl, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dana J. Lent, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Convicted of larceny by bailee, Drake challenged the imposition of a restitution order. The restitution was imposed after Drake filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and was granted a debt discharge.
Drake argued that the restitution award was precluded by the bankruptcy discharge.
The Court has addressed questions about restitution before. They noted that in Abeyta, they reasoned that uniformly, courts hold that a civil settlement or release does not absolve the defendant of criminal restitution. Drake asked the Court to apply the “principal motivation test” to determine whether or not the purpose of the prosecution was simply to collect a debt. The Court stated they were unable to apply it in the instant case for two reasons: the first exception is for criminal proceedings against the debtor. Secondly, Drake did not satisfy the first prong of the plain error rule which required the record to be clear as to the alleged error.

Holding: After reviewing the record, the Court found no clear error. Restitution was ordered under the court’s discretion. The Court concluded that Drake’s previous Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge did not discharge the district court’s restitution order and the Court affirmed the order.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/68pun4 .

[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.]