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 2012 WY 139

Summary of Decision October 31, 2012

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN H. HIBSMAN, JR., Deceased: JASON HIBSMAN v. ROBERT “BOB” MULLEN and TRUDY HIBSMAN, REBECCA HIBSMAN and EMILY HIBSMAN

Docket Number: S-12-0036

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

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

Representing Appellant: M. Gregory Weisz and Jodi D. Shea of Pence and MacMillan, LLC, Laramie, WY. Argument by Mr. Weisz.

Representing Appellee: Robert Mullen, of Casper, WY. No appearances entered for Trudy, Rebecca, and Emily Hibsman.

Date of Decision: October 31, 2012

Facts: Jason Hibsman (Appellant) appealed an order issued by the district court finding prima facie evidence for the Personal Representative of John H. Hibsman, Jr.’s estate to proceed in recovering “not less than $137,566.46” from Appellant.

Issues: Appellant states one issue:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence presented at the September 9, 2011, hearing to find that [Appellant] concealed, embezzled, conveyed away and/or disposed of monies and other property of the Estate and whether the evidence presented at the September 9, 2011 hearing supported the judgment entered against [Appellant] in an amount not less than $137,566.46.

Holdings: Although a special proceeding occurred, no substantial right of Appellant’s was affected by the district court’s decision, and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the instant case on appeal. Dismissed.

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 2010 WY 96

Summary of Decision issued July 7, 2010

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

Case Name: Rohrer v. Bureaus Investment, Group No. 7, LLC

Citation: 2010 WY 96

Docket Number: S-09-0180

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

Representing Rohrer: John M. Burman, Faculty Supervisor, U.W.Legal Services Program, and Carissa Mobley, Student Intern.

Representing Group 7: Larry W. Harrington, Casper, WY.

Facts/Discussion: Rohrer contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying her “Motion to Have Requests for Admission Deemed Denied or in the Alternative to Withdraw Admissions.” She also contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Group 7 failed to present a prima facie case for summary judgment and because she came forward with evidence that created genuine issues of material fact. Group 7 purchased a debt from Chase which is attributed to Rohrer. Rohrer has denied the debt since 2004.

Admissions: Rule 36 governs requests for admissions. The Court stated that “[j]udicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.” Rohrer asserted that she responded to the requests for admissions although she had no proof of that contention. Her answers to both the initial and amended complaints with forthright denials that she owed Group 7 any money for the credit card account at issue are included in the record. The Court perceived the request for admissions as an attempt to obtain admissions to matters that Rohrer had vehemently denied multiple times since 2004.
Genuine issues of material fact: If the admissions Group 7 is dependent on are permitted to be withdrawn, then a genuine issue of material fact exists because here denial that she owed the debt at issue is at odds with Groups 7’s contention that she owes a debt owned by Group 7 via the bill of sale that does not include the Exhibit “A” referenced item.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing Rohrer to withdraw those admissions which go to the matters which she has denied since the matter first arose over six years ago. The Court agreed there were genuine issues of material fact once it allowed the admissions to be withdrawn.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2a3f5n2 .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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 40

Summary of Decision issued April 8, 2008

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

Case Name: Kruckenberg v. Ding Masters, Inc.

Citation: 2008 WY 40

Docket Number: S-07-0084

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

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Ron G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Robert Carl Jarosh and Richard Grant Schneebeck, of Hirst & Appelgate, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Kruckenberg and Leif appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Ding Masters’ favor.
Jurisdiction: The summary judgment in Ding Masters’ favor affected a substantial right but it did not determine the action because Appellants still maintained unresolved claims against several defendants. The order granting summary judgment was an interlocutory order. It merged with the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice which was the final order in Appellants’ case. Appellants identified and attached the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice to their Notice of Appeal and satisfied the requirements.
Opportunity to Respond: Appellants contended that they were not afforded an opportunity to respond to Ding Masters’ motion for summary judgment. They also asserted that the Court’s prior decisions interpreting W.R.C.P. 56 required the district court to hold a hearing or to inform Appellants before ruling that no hearing would be held. W.R.C.P. 6(c) notified Appellants that they must respond to the summary judgment motion within 20 days. They failed to do so. The rule notified Appellants that the district court could in its discretion rule on the motion without a hearing. Furthermore, W.R.C.P. 56(e) required that, in the absence of a response from the non-moving party, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
Summary Judgment: The summary judgment movant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case with admissible evidence. Once that is accomplished the burden shifts to the opposing party to present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Ding Masters submitted affidavits, deposition excerpts, and other materials in support of its motion. Appellants filed no response in opposition and the Court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact.

Holding: Ding Masters successfully presented a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment. Kruckenberg and Leif did not come forward with evidentiary materials to counter that case, nor did they demonstrate that Ding Masters’ own materials raised genuine issues of material fact.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/64dkd8 .

[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.]