Summary 2013 WY 34

Summary of Decision March 19, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

Case Name: BARLOW RANCH, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. GREENCORE PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC; GREENCORE PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC v. BARLOW RANCH, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Docket Number: S-12-0038; S-12-0039

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

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

Representing Barlow Ranch, Limited Partnership: Dan B. Riggs, Mistee L. Elliott and Amanda K. Roberts of Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Riggs and Ms. Elliott

Representing Greencore Pipeline Company, LLC: Jon T. Dyre of Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Billings, Montana; Timothy M. Stubson of Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Messrs. Dyre and Stubson.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2013

Facts: Greencore Pipeline Company, LLC (Greencore) filed an action seeking to condemn easements across property owned by Barlow Ranch, Limited Partnership (Barlow) for a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide (CO2). The parties reached an agreement on the terms of possession and scope of the easements but asked the district court to determine the amount that would justly compensate Barlow for the partial taking of its property.

During a two day bench trial, Barlow presented evidence of prices paid for other comparable pipeline easements to show the fair market value of Greencore’s easement and the compensation due for the partial taking. Greencore argued that Barlow was only entitled to a percentage of fee value and comparable easement sales should not be considered in determining the appropriate amount of compensation for the condemned easement. The district court concluded Wyoming statutes allowed consideration of comparable sales in determining just compensation, but the easements Barlow presented were not sufficiently comparable to be reliable evidence of the fair market value of Greencore’s easement. Instead, it awarded compensation based upon the average of the amounts Greencore had paid other landowners for easements for its CO2 pipeline. Barlow appealed the district court’s order and Greencore cross appealed.

In its appeal, Barlow claimed the district court erred in concluding the easements it relied upon were not valid comparables. Barlow also asserted the district court erred in concluding annual payments for a condemned easement are not permissible under Wyoming law. In its cross appeal, Greencore asserted the district court erred in considering evidence of comparable easements in arriving at a damages award far in excess of the fair market value of the land on which the easement is located. Greencore further asserted the district court erred in not granting it the right to abandon the pipeline in place.

Issues: The issues presented in these consolidated cases are:

A. Did the district court err by concluding comparable easements were proper evidence to establish the value of a partial taking of real property for a pipeline easement?

B. Did the district court err when it ruled the easements offered by Barlow as comparables were not the result of arms’ length transactions?

C. Did the district court err in concluding the pipeline easements offered by Barlow were not comparable to the Greencore easement pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 1-26-704(a)(iii)(B) and (C) (LexisNexis 2011)

D. Did the district court err in concluding annual payments for a condemned easement are not permissible under Wyoming law?

E. Did the district court err when it refused to rule that Greencore was entitled to abandon its pipeline in place when its need for it terminates?

Holdings: Wyoming law specifically provides for use of comparable sales of easements to determine the fair market value of a condemned easement. The district court, however, applied incorrect legal standards and committed clear error when it concluded none of Barlow’s proposed easement transactions were comparable. The district court did not follow the proper methodology in determining whether the transactions were arms’ length or the other easements were of comparable type, size and location. On remand, the district court should analyze the proffered easements to determine whether they are comparable under the appropriate standards. The analysis may consider the comparables as substantive evidence of fair market value and/or as a basis for Barlow’s appraiser’s calculation of fair market value. In determining the fair market value, the district court will need to address the similarities and differences between the individual comparables and the Greencore easement. As the Court stated in Frangos, fair market value based on comparable sales is determined by “making adjustments for prices of those [comparables] that are more similar or dissimilar to condemned property.” Frangos, 487 P.2d at 807.

The district court also incorrectly concluded, as a matter of law, that an annual payment cannot form part of the just compensation in easement condemnation cases. On remand, the district court must conduct a factual analysis to determine whether annual payments are appropriate in this case. Once the proper analysis is done, the resulting award may be higher or lower than the original award of a one-time lump sum in the amount of the average Greencore paid for its other easements. The district court properly concluded the issue of whether Greencore has to remove the pipeline upon abandonment and termination of the easement is not yet ripe for consideration.

Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for additional 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 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 148

Summary of Decision November 21, 2012


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed in part. Affirmed in part.

Case Name: ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, and TERESA SHELTON, individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989 v. ROBERT REDLAND, Individually, ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY and MIKE KIMSEY and ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002, and as Successor Trustee of the Irene Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002.

ROBERT REDLAND v. ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, ROALENE McCARTHY, and TERESA SHELTON, individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989 and SHARON REDLAND.

ROALENE McCARTHY v. ROBERT REDLAND, Individually, ROBERT REDLAND, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY and MIKE KIMSEY.

Docket Number: S-12-0010, S-12-0011, S-12-0012

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

Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County, Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge.

Representing Appellants/Appellees Rolly, Kendrick, Sharon and Debbie Redland and Teresa Shelton: S. Joseph Darrah of Darrah Law Office, P.C., Powell, WY.

Representing Appellees/Appellants Robert Redland and Roalene McCarthy: J. Kenneth Barbe II of Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C., Casper, WY; Ronald P. Jurovich, Thermopolis, WY; and Steve C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, WY.

No appearance entered for Appellees Lisa and Mike Kimsey in S-12-0010 and S-12-0012.

No appearance entered for Appellees Roalene McCarthy and Teresa Shelton in S-12-011.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2012

Facts: These consolidated appeals stem from the Redland family’s dispute over ranch property and operations. Appeals numbered S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 relate to real property that some of the Redland children claim their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust. The district court granted Robert Redland partial summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by the statute of frauds, and the Redland Children appealed that summary judgment order.

Following the entry of partial summary judgment, a bench trial was held on the remaining issues. Among the issues tried were claims for unjust enrichment by the two Redland sons, Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland, against Robert Redland for improvements that they had made to the disputed trust properties. The trial court ruled against Robert Redland on the unjust enrichment claims and awarded damages to both Rolly and Kendrick Redland. The trial court also ruled against Robert Redland on his counterclaim against Kendrick Redland, and his wife, Sharon, for a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland’s Angus cattle operation. In Appeal No. S-12-0011, the father appealed the trial court’s rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.

Issues: Appeals S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 are both appeals from the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment. In S-12-0010, which was filed by three of the Redland children, Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland and Teresa Redland Shelton, the following issues are presented for this Court’s review:

1. Whether the District Court erred when it determined the [S]tatute of Frauds barred Appellants’ claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance after Appellants had fully performed the agreement?

2. Whether the District Court erred when it determined that the applicable statute of limitations barred Appellants’ claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance when there was no evidence that Appellants knew or should have known that the Agreement was breached before the limitations period expired?

In Appeal S-12-0012, Roalene Redland McCarthy, in a separately filed appeal from the summary judgment ruling, states the issues differently but presents essentially the same questions for our review:

ISSUE I: For purposes of the Statute of Limitations, when did the cause of action for specific performance accrue?

ISSUE II: Whether full performance by the Appellant of a Trust Agreement presented a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment on the basis of the Statue of Frauds.

ISSUE III: Did the discovery of a breach present a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment for filing outside the Statute of Limitations?

ISSUE IV: Where one of seven parties to a Trust Agreement breached the contract, was it error in applying the “discovery rule” for the District Court to impute to Appellant what that court apparently concluded was either known or should have been known by others of the non-breaching contracting parties?

In Appeal S-12-0011, Robert Redland appeals the district court’s rulings following a bench trial and presents the following issues on appeal:

A. Issues Related to Unjust Enrichment

1. Did the trial court err when it found that Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland had proven the elements of unjust enrichment?

2. If Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland proved the elements of unjust enrichment, did the trial court err in the amount of the damages awarded?

B. Issues Related to Redland Angus

1. Did the Court err when it admitted Plaintiff’s Exhibit 105 redacting Plaintiff's sticky note which said “part of bull sale[?]”

2. Did the Court err when it found that Robert Redland is not and was not a partner in Redland Angus?

Holdings: Disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the questions of whether the Redland Children’s property claims were barred by the statute of limitations or the statute of frauds, and the Court therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for a trial on those claims. The Court found no clear error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings on the unjust enrichment claims and Redland Angus partnership claims, and affirmed those rulings.

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]