Summary 2013 WY 90

Summary of Decision July 19, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: GOSAR’S UNLIMITED INC., v. THE WYOMING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Docket Number: S-12-0194

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

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

Representing Appellant: Bruce S. Asay of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan T. Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Robinson.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2013

Facts: Gosar’s Unlimited, Inc. (“Gosar’s”) owns and operates two mobile home parks where, historically, Gosar’s included in the rent it charged tenants the cost of water that it purchased from the City of Rock Springs for the tenants’ use. However, in 2000, Gosar’s installed water meters on each trailer lot and began charging tenants for their water usage separately from their rent.

In 2008, acting on a complaint from a former tenant, the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) opened an investigation to determine whether Gosar’s was operating as a public utility and therefore subject to regulation by the PSC. Following an investigation and subsequent hearing, the PSC determined that Gosar’s was a public utility subject to PSC regulation. The district court affirmed the PSC’s determination, and this appeal followed.

Issues: We rephrase Gosar’s issues as follows: Whether Gosar’s is a public utility subject to regulation by the PSC, given that Gosar’s operates a mobile home park and installed water meters to allow it to bill tenants for their water usage separately from their rent? Whether the PSC’s regulation of Gosar’s has violated Gosar’s right to equal protection because the PSC does not regulate other similarly situated mobile home park operators?

Holdings: The PSC’s conclusion and the district court’s order affirming that Gosar’s is a public utility under Wyoming law is affirmed.

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 24

Summary of Decision February 23, 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: REDCO CONSTRUCTION, a Wyoming Corporation v. PROFILE PROPERTIES, LLC, a Wyoming LLC.

Citation:  2012 WY 24

Docket Number: S-10-0255

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465109

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Justin Kallal of Justin Kallal, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Raymond W. Martin of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: February 23, 2012

Facts: This case is a lien foreclosure case involving a landlord, a tenant and a contractor. Profile Properties, LLC (Profile) leased commercial real property to Clean Start, LLC (Clean Start).  Clean Start sought to renovate the property to convert it from office space to a commercial laundry facility.  Profile granted Clean Start permission to renovate the property on the condition that Clean Start would pay for the renovations, and Clean Start thereafter contracted with Redco Construction (Redco) to perform the work.  When Clean Start defaulted on its payments to Redco, Redco filed a lien against Profile’s property.

Redco thereafter filed a complaint against Profile and Clean Start, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel, and seeking to foreclose on its lien against Profile’s real property.  The district court interpreted Wyoming’s lien statutes to allow a lien against a landlord’s real property for the debt of a tenant under two circumstances: 1) if the landlord agreed to pay for the improvements to the property; or 2) if the tenant was acting as the landlord’s agent in contracting for the improvements.  It then granted Profile’s motion for summary judgment finding that Profile did not agree to pay for the renovations to the property and that Clean Start was not acting as Profile’s agent in contracting for the improvements.

Issues:  Redco presents the following single issue on appeal: Did the trial court err as a matter of law by finding that for a valid mechanic’s lien to exist for improvements placed upon the landlord’s property by the tenant, “specifically authorized” as used in W.S. 29-2-105(a)(ii), requires the finding of something akin to an agency relationship between the landlord and tenant and granting summary judgment to the Defendant?

Holdings: The Court found that the district court correctly interpreted Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-105(a)(ii) to require a finding of agency between the landlord and tenant before a mechanic’s lien may attach to the landlord’s property for work performed at the tenant’s behest.  In this case, that relationship did not exist.  The decision of the district court was affirmed.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.