Summary 2012 WY 48

Summary of Decision March 28, 2012

[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] 

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

Case Name:  WORLD FAMILY CORPORATION, A Wyoming Corporation, dba MORROW GLOBAL v. WINDJAMMER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Domesticated in Wyoming and UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, STATE OF WYOMING, Evanston, Wyoming, and WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-11-0165

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465280

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant: Tara B. Nethercott, Woodhouse Roden, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Windjammer Communications, LLC and Uinta County School District No. 1: Mark W. Harris, Harris Law Firm, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State of Wyoming, Department of Transportation: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. Moench.

Date of Decision: March 28, 2012

Facts: World Family Corporation, dba Morrow Global (Morrow), sought judgment against Uinta County School District No. 1 (the District) and Windjammer Communications, LLC (Windjammer) declaring that Morrow is a co-owner with the District of a conduit located under Interstate 80 in Evanston, Wyoming.  Morrow also sought an order permanently enjoining the District from interfering with, excluding or converting Morrow’s use of the conduit.  Finally, by way of a quantum meruit claim, Morrow asserted that Windjammer had been unjustly enriched by using the conduit without paying for it.

The District and Windjammer moved to dismiss the complaint.  They argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the District, Morrow had failed to join the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) as an indispensable party and World Family Corporation, the party designated as plaintiff in the complaint, did not exist at the time of the events giving rise to the action.  Morrow moved to join WYDOT as a defendant and the district court granted the motion.  Because both parties submitted matters outside the pleadings in presenting argument on the motion to dismiss, the district court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.  After a hearing, the court granted the motion, finding that Morrow had failed to present any facts showing that it was an owner of the conduit and entitled to the relief sought. Morrow appealed. 

Issues: Morrow presented two issues, which were rephrased as follows: Whether the district court erred in sua sponte deciding an issue that was not presented, thereby improperly shifting the burden to Morrow. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Windjammer, the District and WYDOT on the ownership issue when that issue was not raised in the motion and the parties had no notice the district court intended to address it. Windjammer, the District and WYDOT contended the district court properly granted summary judgment in their favor.  

Holdings:  The Court concluded the district court improperly granted summary judgment when the parties had no opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issue of Morrow’s ownership.  The Court reversed the summary judgment order. 

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 49

Summary of Decision issued April 22, 2010

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

Case Name: Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Bd. of Cty Commissioners of Crook County, Wyoming

Citation: 2010 WY 49

Docket Number: S-09-0137

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

Representing Appellant Elk Horn Ranch, Inc.: John M. Daly and Matthew R. Sorenson, Daly, Davidson & Sorenson, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Bd of Crook Cty Commissioners: Joseph M. Baron, Crook County Attorney.

Representing Appellee/Intervenor Crago Ranch Trust: Mark L. Hughes, Hughes Law Office, Sundance, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. appealed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of its petition for review of a decision by the Crook County Board of Commissioners (Board.)
The single issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition for review. There are procedures that must be followed when dismissing a case sua sponte. The leading federal decision is Tingler v. Marshall in which the court outlined a five-step procedure for dismissal of complaints sua sponte: allow service of the complaint upon the defendant; notify all parties of the court’s intent to dismiss; give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated in the notice; give the defendant a chance to respond or file an answer or motions; and if the claim is dismissed, state the reasons for the dismissal. The Court stated that the five-step process outlined in Tingler and adopted in Osborn v. Emporium Videos are required for a sua sponte dismissal of an administrative appeal.

Conclusion: The district court did not follow the five-step process required when dismissing a case sua sponte. It did not notify the parties of its intent to dismiss, or give the parties a chance to respond.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

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

[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 45

Summary of Decision issued April 14, 2008

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

Case Name: Jenkins v. Miller

Citation: 2008 WY 45

Docket Number: S-07-0216

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County, the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Kim D. Cannon and J. Mark Stewart of Davis & Cannon, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Plaintiffs): Dennis M. Kirven and Benjamin S. Kirven of Kirven & Kirven, PC, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Jenkins’ challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Millers and sua sponte dismissal of Jenkins’ counterclaim with respect to a private road easement. Millers had requested declaratory relief regarding an Easement Deed unilaterally recorded by Jenkins, the terms of which Millers disputed. Jenkins counterclaimed for a declaration that the same Easement Deed was valid and further that the parties were bound by an historical oral agreement for easement. The district court granted judgment in favor of Millers, concluding that Millers never accepted the Easement Deed and that there was no legally enforceable access to Millers’ lands. The court further dismissed Jenkins’ counterclaim on the grounds that Jenkins were precluded from seeking such declaratory relief as the decision to pursue an easement rested only with Millers, as potential grantees/dominant estate owners.
Grant of Millers’ Motion for Summary Judgment: Wyoming law holds that the grantees must “accept” the offered easement for the easement to be valid and binding. Millers argued that a letter and their Notice of Non-acceptance of Easement Deed were sufficient to demonstrate rejection of the Easement Deed. However, the Millers continued to use the route which had been used consistently for over twenty years. The Court stated the record could have supported a conclusion in favor of either party at that point.
The district court was also asked to determine whether Millers had any legally enforceable access, which request would encompass possibilities such as irrevocable license or an oral easement falling outside the statute of frauds. The Court noted it was one thing to say that Millers timely and appropriately rejected the Easement Deed but quite another to say that they had no legally enforceable license that they historically had accepted. The record showed that the parties had negotiated the gravel road in its current location in exchange for a grant of “permanent easement.”
Dismissal of Jenkins’ Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment: The district court dismissed sua sponte Jenkins’ counterclaim for declaratory relief. Sua sponte dismissals require adherence to a specific procedure. The district court failed to follow it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the district court with directions to follow the procedural steps outlined in Osborn.
The Court addressed the district court’s conclusion that the right to pursue an easement rests exclusively with the petitioners, and that the Defendants were precluded from bringing a declaratory judgment action. “Landlocked” property owners cannot be forced to pursue legal remedies such as common law way of necessity or an implied easement, prior to seeking a private road pursuant to Wyoming’s private road statutes. Wyoming also recognizes the rights of property owners whose lands will be subjected to the imposition of private roads. Such property owners should have the right to determine the status of alleged or potential existing legally enforceable access through their lands even where those rights have not yet been adjudicated.

Holding: The district court erred in granting summary judgment to Millers, both in its determination that there were no issues of fact regarding Millers’ acceptance of the Easement Deed and in its conclusion that there were no issues of fact regarding Millers’ lack of legally enforceable access to their lands. The district court further erred in dismissing Jenkins’ counterclaim on the grounds that Jenkins as alleged grantors of an easement were without authority to seek a declaratory judgment as to the validity of that easement or their rights thereunder.

Reversed.

D.J. Donnell delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/65sdue .

[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.]