Summary 2009 WY 38

Summary of Decision issued March 13, 2009

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

Case Name: Omohundro v. Sullivan; Sullivan v. Omohundro

Citation: 2009 WY 38

Docket Number: S-08-0027; S-08-0028

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

Representing Appellants Omohundro Trust in case S-08-0027: Kendal Hoopes, Yonkee & Toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming; Anthony T. Wendtland, Wendtland & Wendtland, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Sullivan Group in case S-08-0027: Kim P. Cannon and Sasha Johnston, Davis & Cannon, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants (Omohundro Trusts) own interests in Tract 6 of the Twin Lakes subdivision near Buffalo, Wyoming, and Appellees (Sullivan Group) own Tracts 1-4. The parties dispute whether under the subdivision restrictive covenants, Omohundro Trusts was required to obtain consent from all of the landowners before they could take action which would allow the City of Buffalo to obtain the water rights appurtenant to the subdivision lands. The district court ruled on summary judgment that the restrictive water rights unambiguously required the approval of the owners of all the tracts.
In the document entitled “Covenants for Twin Lakes, Buffalo, Wyoming,” Tracts 1-5 are referred to as Exhibit “A” lands while Tract 6 is referred to as Exhibit “B” lands. The language at the heart of the dispute reads: Notwithstanding any other provision in this declaration, any action, step or procedure (including without limitation, the further subdivision of any lot within the development) or the omission of any act, step or procedure which would allow or entitle the City of Buffalo to take possession, ownership, and control of the irrigation water rights applicable to the development on Exhibit “B” lands as set forth in said attached agreement shall require the written consent and approval of 100% of all lot owners within the development as well as the record owner(s) of Exhibit “B” lands. The Court considers all parts of the covenants in interpreting a provision. The Court stated that by its language the caveat included the recitation paragraphs that Omohundro Trusts claimed should be interpreted as applying to the Exhibit “A” lands. Omohundro Trusts offered the affidavit of William Omohundro as support for its reading of the covenants in its summary judgment action. The Court noted that evidence of the declarants’ subjective intention was not relevant or admissible to interpret the contract, whether its language was ambiguous or not. In addition, the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the document could be gleaned from the covenants themselves and the documents attached including the Water Connector’s Agreement with the City.

Conclusion: The Court agreed with the district court that the disputed language unambiguously required the approval of the owners of all the tracts.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

J. Burke dissented, J. Golden joined: J. Burke disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the pertinent language in the restrictive covenants was unambiguous. Objectively, the language was ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations regarding the necessity of consent from all Exhibit “A” lot owners before subdivision of Exhibit “B” lands could occur. The interpretation of an ambiguous restrictive covenant raised genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cjvrst .

[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 2007 WY 74

Summary of Decision issued May 9, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Hicks and Pronghorn Publishing, Board of Trustees of the Scenic Preserve Trust v. Dowd and Dowd; Board of Johnson County Commissioners

Citation: 2007 WY 74

Docket Number: 06-2

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Dennis M. Kirven of Kirven and Kirven, PC, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants Fred L. and Linda S. Dowd): Tom C. Toner of Yonkee & Toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Board of Johnson County Commissioners: Greg L. Goddard, Deputy County Attorney, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Issue: Appellants presented 6 issues but the Court focused on the issue of standing: Whether Plaintiffs had standing to enforce the Scenic Preserve Trust.

Facts/Discussion: The case arose from a conservation easement established in 1993 on Meadowood Ranch in Johnson County.
Standing to enforce a charitable trust: The district court found the Scenic Preserve Trust (Trust) was a charitable trust. The Court agreed and after a review of the case concluded the action was one seeking to enforce the terms of the Trust. After discussing the common law of trusts, the Uniform Trust Code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 4-10-110(d) and § 4-10-406(c), the Court concluded that a charitable trust may be enforced by a settler, the attorney general or a qualified beneficiary of the trust. Appellants’ only benefit from enforcement was that shared by other members of the public so they were not qualified beneficiaries and therefore lacked standing to enforce the terms of the Trust.
The Attorney General’s role: At the time the Attorney General declined to participate in the case, the district court had already ruled that Appellants had standing to pursue the action. Given that ruling, it was understandable the Attorney General allowed the private litigants to pursue the litigation. Given the Court’s holding that Appellants did not have standing, the Attorney General now has the opportunity to reassess his position.
Matters of great public interest and importance: Appellants’ arguments were not meaningfully developed. The “great public interest or importance” exception must be applied with caution where strict standards are applied. In the instant case, the Court concluded it did not qualify.
Public meetings law: Assuming that Appellants had standing to pursue the issue, they did not provide authority to support their position that the Trust was a subagency of the Board. The Board took its actions at a regularly scheduled public meeting, and the Court agreed with the district court that no violation of the public meetings law occurred.

Holding: The Court concluded the instant action was one to enforce the Scenic Preserve Trust. Appellants did not meet the definition of “qualified beneficiary” and therefore lacked standing to enforce the terms of the Trust.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2c6zly .