Summary 2013 WY 206

Summary of Decision September 13, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: GEORGE M. SONNETT, JR. and WENDY Z. BURGERS SONNETT, Husband and Wife v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SUBLETTE COUNTY, a Wyoming corporation

Docket Number: S-12-0237

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: George M. Sonnett, Jr. and Wendy Z. Burgers Sonnett of Washington, Virginia, pro se. Argument by Mr. Sonnett and Ms. Burgers Sonnett.

Representing Appellee: Stuart R. Day and Keith J. Dodson of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Day.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2013

Facts: The appellants, George M. Sonnett, Jr. and Wendy Z. Burgers Sonnett, filed a complaint against the appellees, First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title Insurance Company of Sublette County (collectively “First American”). In their complaint, the Sonnetts alleged that First American breached the terms of the title insurance policy, was negligent, and acted in bad faith when it determined that damages the Sonnetts claimed they incurred due to a “Master Plan” associated with their property was not covered under the title insurance policy. After the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of First American and dismissed the Sonnetts’ complaint. The Sonnetts now appeal that decision and other procedural matters.

Issues: 1. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of First American regarding the Sonnetts’ breach of contract claim? 2. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of First American regarding the Sonnetts’ bad faith denial of coverage claim? 3. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of First American regarding the Sonnetts’ claims of negligence? 4. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it considered a decision letter it previously issued in a different civil action involving the Sonnetts and the same property at dispute in the present case? 5. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it struck portions of the Sonnetts’ affidavits that were attached to their motion for summary judgment? 6. Did the district court err when it granted First American’s motion for summary judgment despite the fact that it had already ordered the parties to mediate the case?

Holdings: These “arguments,” as presented by the Sonnetts, are substantively deficient. They lack any cogent argument or citation to relevant authority. Instead, they simply are conclusory allegations. We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of First American on all claims brought in the Sonnetts’ complaint. The order of the district court 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 2008 WY 31

Summary of Decision issued March 20, 2008

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

Case Name: Haines v. Old Rep. Nat’l Title Ins. Co.

Citation: 2008 WY 31

Docket Number: 06-147

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Gibson Sean Benham, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Keith R. Nachbar of Keith R. Nachbar, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Haines asked the Court to decide for the first time whether a title insurance policy that insures legal access requires the insurer to affirmatively obtain a recorded easement or right of access or compensate the insured for the lack of recorded access rights. The trial court granted summary judgment to Old Republic holding that Haines was not entitled to either remedy because she had access to her property and had suffered no loss entitling her to compensation under the policy.
Haines contended that as a matter of law, an insurer’s failure to remedy a title defect or compensate for the insured’s having to establish the right of access under these circumstances breaches the title insurance policy. The Court found in the instant case that the insurer had adequately established that the alleged marketability or other title problems did not really exist and thus Haines could not suffer any loss or damages, and the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

Holding: Haines had two other methods of access and presented no evidence that these were not legally enforceable. Only defects shown in the public record relating to a legal right of access are covered under the policy.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

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

[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 2007 WY 184

Summary of Decision issued November 16, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: West America Housing Corp. v. Pearson

Citation: 2007 WY 184

Docket Number: S-07-0068

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

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Mary Elizabeth Galvan, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Don W. Riske and Sean C. Chambers of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether a fully executed quitclaim deed, acknowledging payment of consideration and containing no reservation of rights may be set aside as void for lack of consideration under the doctrines of merger and estoppel by deed. Whether the trial court’s setting aside the quitclaim deed from Pearson to Oltman was plain error, requiring reversal to give effect to the doctrines of merger and estoppel by deed. Whether conveyance of the subject property to a party to the deed, by quitclaim deed, was sufficient to confer title in the property to the grantee, who could then dispose of the property by quitclaim deed to a subsequent grantee.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants challenge a January 2007 order of the district court which found that (1) a quitclaim deed from Pearson to Oltman was void for lack of consideration and (2) that subsequent quitclaim deeds were void because they were fraudulent conveyances. The Court made note that Joelson, Shoopman, Craver and Oltman purported to own WAHC. The district court’s order also quieted title to the disputed property in Pearson but did not award him any monetary damages.
Standard of Review: When a matter has been tried before the district court without a jury, the Court’s review of the court’s findings of fact is under the clearly erroneous standard. The issues raised in the appeal were not addressed to the district court in the proceedings below.
Appellants asserted the district court committed plain error because the principles of merger and estoppel by deed mandated reversal of the district court’s order. They also asserted that the doctrine of “merger” precluded the district court from concluding that there was no consideration paid to Pearson for the quitclaim deed because the quitclaim deed acknowledged that he received the consideration. The Court referred to their holding in Rehnberg v. Hirschberg that a contract for the sale of realty is executory until closing, at which time the contract has been executed, it merges with the deed and is no longer separately enforceable. The Court specifically stated they did not mean to dilute the important role of the doctrine by concluding that they would not consider Appellants’ contentions in that regard under the plain error rule. They noted that based on the evidence it was not plain error for the district court to conclude that the deed at issue was void for lack of consideration.
The Court stated in Kennedy Oil v. Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. that estoppel by deed was based upon the covenants contained in a warranty deed and does not therefore arise from a conveyance via quitclaim. The Court rejected Appellant’s claim of plain error because it was not argued to the trial court and because the plain error rule does not mandate that the Court consider it.
Since the Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the initial quitclaim deed was void, it flowed that the succeeding deeds were also void. However, the district court determined that they were fraudulent conveyances. The record reflects that Oltman conceded that the second and third quitclaim deeds were recorded with intent to defraud Pearson.

Holding: Based on the evidence it was not plain error for the district court to conclude that the deed at issue was void for lack of consideration. The district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and its application of the law not in error. The order setting aside those conveyances and declaring them void was not erroneous.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/37o75b .