Summary 2013 WY 91

Summary of Decision July 24, 2013

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

Case Name: STATE OF WYOMING ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES v. LISA KISLING

Docket Number: S-12-0256

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

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

Representing Appellant: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Cooley.

Representing Appellee: John M. Burman, Director, Ethan Doak and Matthew Pennell, Student Interns, University of Wyoming, College of Law Legal Services Program. Argument by Mr. Doak.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2013

Facts: Appellant, the Department of Family Services (Department), denied child care assistance benefits to Appellee, Lisa Kisling, because her participation in a graduate-level educational program rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits after a contested case hearing. Ms. Kisling petitioned for review of that decision in the district court, and the district court reversed the OAH’s decision after finding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Ms. Kisling. The Department appeals from the district court’s order, contending that the issue of estoppel was not raised before the OAH, and that the district court should not have considered it.

Issues: The Department presents three issues for our review, which we discuss in the following order: Did the Department correctly conclude, as a matter of law, that its statutes and rules precluded Ms. Kisling from receiving child care assistance benefits while she attended law school? Did the district court err when it considered the issue of equitable estoppel on review of the Department’s decision? Did the district court err when it determined that the Department was equitably estopped from terminating, and thereafter denying, Ms. Kisling benefits while she attended law school? Ms. Kisling states the issues in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: The district court’s order reversing the OAH’s decision upholding the Department’s denial of benefits is reversed, and we remand to the district court with instructions that an order be entered affirming the OAH’s decision.

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 86

Summary of Decision, July 16, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: NICHOLAS A. PICOZZI v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0254

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: James C. Worthen of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy
Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2013

Facts: Nicholas Picozzi, the appellant, injured his neck in a compensable work-related accident. After receiving temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. The appellant applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for additional benefits, arguing that the shoulder injury was a second compensable injury and he, therefore, was entitled to a separate period of benefits. Although the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed, the district court rejected that argument. The appellant now appeals that decision and also argues in the alternative that equitable estoppel prohibits enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation.

Issues: Did the OAH hearing examiner err as a matter of law by granting the appellant’s application for temporary total disability benefits? Is the Division equitably estopped from enforcing the thirty-six month limitation on receipt of temporary total disability benefits?

Holdings: The appellant received temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months as a result of work-related injury to his neck. After the thirty-six months expired, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. Because the appellant’s shoulder injury was a result of the same accident that caused his neck injury, he is not entitled to an additional period of benefits. Equitable estoppel does not prevent the enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation because the appellant did not detrimentally rely upon an action by the Division. We affirm the district’s court’s decision, finding that the appellant was not entitled to further benefits.

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 2009 WY 69

Summary of Decision issued May 28, 2009

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

Case Name: Lucky Gate Ranch, LLC v. Baker & Assoc., Inc.

Citation: 2009 WY 69

Docket Number: S-08-0096

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant Lucky Gate Ranch, LLC: Lucas Buckley, Matthew Kaufman and Michael Rosenthal, Hathaway & Kunz, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Baker: Richard Mincer and Lindsay Woznick, Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Lucky Gate Ranch filed suit against Baker seeking damages resulting from Baker’s failure to provide engineering and surveying services.

Statute of Limitations: The Court previously stated in Ogle that where an injury is sustained in consequence of the wrongful act of another, and the law affords a remedy, the statute of limitations attaches at once. In the instant case, Lucky Gate knew in May of 2005 that it had incurred damages as a result of Baker’s failure to perform. Lucky Gate's attorney demanded a refund on that date for the amount Lucky Gate previously paid to Baker. As of that date, Lucky Gate had discovered the wrongful conduct and was aware that it had been damaged. The statute of limitations had attached and the cause of action had accrued on or before that date. The limitation period was not extended because other damages had not yet occurred.
Equitable Estoppel: The doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations in appropriate circumstances. However, in the instant case, the Court stated the undisputed facts presented did not satisfy the elements of equitable estoppel.

Conclusion: Whether the statute of limitations set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107 began to run on the date of the “act, error or omission” or on the date the cause of action “accrued”, the lawsuit was untimely. In determining equitable estoppel, Lucky Gate must have established that its delay in filing suit was induced by Baker. There was no evidence that Baker took any action that induced Lucky Gate to delay initiating the litigation.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/kpgz4y .

[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 150

Summary of Decision issued December 17, 2008

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

Case Name: Swinney v. Jones

Citation: 2008 WY 150

Docket Number: S-07-0176

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge.

Representing Appellant Swinney, et al: John H. Robinson, Jamieson & Robinson, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees, Jones, Lovelace, Lunstrum, Jones and Welo: Kendal Royce Hoopes, Yonkee & toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming; Peter C. Nicolaysen, Nicolaysen & Wilking, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Anthony Ingram and Robert Ingram: Douglas R. McLaughlin, Casper, Wyoming; Mary Bell Guthrie, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Hilltop National Bank: Stuart R. Day, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants (Sellers) filed suit against Appellees (Buyers) alleging breach of a real estate sales contract. In response, Buyers sought dismissal and judgment on the pleadings asserting that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations applicable to this case is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(i), which provides a ten-year limitation period for actions based upon a written contract. The land sale closing occurred on September 15, 1992. The district court determined the limitation period began, at the latest, one year later. The district court relied upon the language of the contract and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-141(c). Sellers filed the complaint on August 18, 2006 which was more than ten years after the alleged breach occurred. Sellers do not dispute the district court’s conclusion that the limitation period expired on September 15, 2003, rather they contend that Buyers should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense under the theory of equitable estoppel. In Archuleta as well as other cases, the Court has determined that equitable estoppel does not preclude assertion of the applicable statute of limitations as a defense. When the Court applied the Archuleta analysis to the allegations contained in Sellers’ complaint and proposed amended complaint, the Court reached the conclusion that the allegations were insufficient to support Sellers’ contention that Sellers have alleged a sufficient factual basis to preclude Buyers from asserting the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

Holding: The allegations of the complaint, and the amended complaint, reflect that Sellers knew or should have known that the breach of contract occurred on September 15, 1993. Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(i), they had ten years to initiate litigation. Sellers failed to bring their lawsuit within that time period. Their complaint and amended complaint clearly demonstrate that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6k4x6r .

[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.]