Summary 2014 WY 28

Summary of Decision February 25, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF DANIEL P. SORAN, II, DAN SORAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: DAN SORAN, LYNETTE SORAN and SARAH SORAN v. LAURA SORAN

Docket Number: S-13-0098

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellants: Thomas B. Jubin of Jubin & Zerga, LLC, Cheyenne, WY, and Michael L. Weiner of Yaeger, Jungbauer & Barczak, PLC, Saint Paul, MN. Argument by Mr. Jubin.

Representing Appellee: Scott W. Meier, Lucas Buckley, and Traci L. Lacock of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Meier.

Date of Decision: February 25, 2014

Facts: This case involves a wrongful death claim brought on behalf of the beneficiaries of Daniel P. Soran, II (Decedent). Decedent’s father, in his capacity as personal representative, settled the wrongful death claim with the applicable liability insurance companies for $400,000. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the beneficiaries as to how the settlement proceeds should be distributed, with Decedent’s allegedly estranged wife, Laura Soran, on one side, and Decedent’s parents and sister on the other side. Following a bench trial on distribution of the damages, the district court awarded Laura Soran 75% of the settlement proceeds and divided the remainder of the proceeds among Decedent’s parents and sister. Decedent’s parents and sister appeal, contending that the court erred in imposing on them the burden to disprove Laura Soran’s damages and that the court’s distribution was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence.

Issues: 1) The trial court erred as a matter of law, in imposing the burden upon other beneficiaries to disprove the estranged wife’s claim to wrongful death damages. 2) When distributing settlement proceeds to wrongful death beneficiaries, the trial court’s decision to award 75% of these proceeds to the estranged wife was clearly erroneous where the evidence proved a clear and unquestionable mutual intent to end the marriage, and where the estranged wife failed to prove the loss of a future relationship with the decedent.

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court’s distribution order was clearly erroneous in that it misapplied the burden of proof and improperly presumed damages in favor of Decedent’s wife. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent our direction herein.

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 quotation, 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 72

Summary of Decision May 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: CHRISTINE NODINE, Personal Representative of the Estate of DAVID NODINE v. JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORPORATION, a Wyoming Corporation

Docket Number: S-11-0265

URL:
http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465693

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Andrew L. Payne and Shannon T. Hays of Payne Mitchell Law Group, Dallas, Texas; Terry W. Mackey of Terry W. Mackey, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): James K. Lubing and Leah K. Corrigan of Lubing & Corrigan, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming; Mikel L. Moore of Moore, Cockrell, Goicoechea & Axelberg, P.C., Kalispell, Montana

Date of Decision: May 23, 2012

Facts: Christine Nodine (Mrs. Nodine), whose husband was killed by an avalanche on a ski run at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR), appeals the district court’s summary judgment order dismissing her wrongful death action. The district court dismissed the action because Mrs. Nodine, although duly appointed as personal representative of her husband’s estate in her home state of Texas, had not been appointed personal representative by the Wyoming state district court upon the filing of her wrongful death action and before the two-year period for filing the wrongful death action expired.

Issues: Mrs. Nodine presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the District Court err by applying the holding of Estate of Johnson, 2010 WY 63, 231 P.3d 873 (Wyo. 2010), to this case given that the opinion provides the ruling would have prospective application only and the cause of action in this matter accrued long before the publication of Estate of Johnson?

2. If Estate of Johnson applied, would the confirmation of Mrs. Nodine as personal representative by the District Court have related back to the initial filing of her timely state court complaint under the Wyoming Wrongful Death Act?

3. Did the District Court commit error when it concluded that a personal representative lawfully appointed by a Texas probate court, who then timely filed her wrongful death complaint, failed to meet the conditions precedent for bringing a Wrongful Death Act claim in Wyoming?

4. Did the District Court err in ruling that JHMR had standing to challenge Mrs. Nodine’s capacity?

Holdings: This Court’s decision in Johnson does not apply retroactively to strip Mrs. Nodine of her status as a properly appointed personal representative in her wrongful death action against JHMR. The Court reversed the district court order dismissing that action.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 63

Summary of Decision issued May 18, 2010

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

Case Name: In re Estate of Johnson

Citation: 2010 WY 63

Docket Number: S-09-0040

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis J. Sanderson, Judge.

Representing Kelliann Johnson: Matthew A. Bartlett of Bartlett & Webster, Riverdale, Utah.

Representing Larry Johnson: V. Anthony Vehar of Vehar Law Offices, PC, Evanston, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from a probate court order denying the petition of a decedent’s wife (Wife) to revoke the appointment of the decedent’s father (Father) as personal representative of the decedent for the filing of a wrongful death claim.

Does Wife have standing to challenge appointment: Father declared that Wife lacked standing to bring the appeal because Wife could not prove that she would suffer any harm from Father’s appointment as personal representative. The Court has used the phrases “personal stake in the outcome” and “tangible interest” in describing standing. The Court had no trouble declaring that Wife had standing to challenge Father’s appointment.
Does probate court govern appointment of personal representative: The statutes set forth the order of preference the probate court is to follow in selecting an administrator. The Court noted that the wrongful death act lies at the heart of the dispute as well. The Court stated that the separate purposes of the statutes are entirely distinct. The purpose of an intestate succession statute is to provide for the distribution of a decedent’s estate. The purpose of the wrongful death act was to prescribe limitations and a remedy for a cause of action which did not exist at common law. The Court stated the central theme of the cases reviewed was that an intestate estate probate code administrator and a wrongful death action civil code personal representative have different functions and different duties and there is not and should not be any necessary connection between them. In Bircher, the Court stated that the only person who could bring an action for wrongful death was the personal representative of the deceased, the executor or administrator of decedent’s estate. The Court overruled Bircher prospectively to the extent that it requires a wrongful death action to be brought in probate court, and to the extent that it requires a wrongful death action to be brought in probate court, and to the extent that it requires a wrongful death personal representative to be the administrator or executor of the decedent’s estate in probate. The Court held that inasmuch as the Wyoming wrongful death act does not require the personal representative to be the probate estate’s administrator or executor, it is not up to the Court to insert that requirement. The district court determined that the appointment of a wrongful death act personal representative had nothing to do with the appointment of an executor or administrator under the probate code. Having correctly determined that the wrongful death act appointment of a personal representative was not the appointment of a probate code estate administrator, the district court should have dismissed the probate code action and should not have allowed Father’s appointment to stand.
What governs appointment of personal representative: The only test of who is appointed as personal representative, despite the lack of guidance in the wrongful death act, cannot simply be who first gets to the courthouse. Wife alleged that Father did not provide her notice of the filing of his petition. Upon remand, the district court should consider that lack of notice, and the reason for it, as another factor in making the appointment.

Conclusion: Wife had standing to contest the appointment of Father as personal representative under the wrongful death act because she has a tangible interest in and a personal stake in the outcome. A personal representative should be appointed by the district court within the wrongful death action, rather in a separate probate action. The district court should consider the functions and purposes of the wrongful death act in the light of the facts and circumstances relating to the petitioner and anyone contesting the appointment.

Reversed and remanded.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

J. Hill dissenting, joined by J. Golden: The Justices argued that the majority opinion misused the applicable rules of statutory construction so as to perpetuate irrational “complexities” and to create new “ambiguities” where none exist. The action deprives the surviving spouse of her “entitlement” to serve as the personal representative in the wrongful death action. Father has had three opportunities to raise any issues with respect to Wife’s “entitlement” to serve. The Justices saw no reason why the Court should allow Father a fourth opportunity to attempt to deprive Wife of her statutory entitlement.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/39zs9cp .

[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 2007 WY 151

Summary of Decision issued September 20, 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: Halliburton v. Gunter; Halliburton v. Gunter

Citation: 2007 WY 151

Docket Number: 06-205; S-07-0076

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, the Honorable William F. Downes, Judge

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant/Intervenor): Roger E. Shumate and James C. Worthen of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument in Case No. 06-205 by Mr. Shumate.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Kent W. Spence and M. Kristeen Hand of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument in Case No. 06-205 by Mr. Spence.

Issue: The underlying question in these related cases is whether the personal representative appointed to pursue a wrongful death action under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-38-102(a) must be a resident of the State of Wyoming as is required for intestate estate administrators under the probate code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-4-201(c). The Court declined to answer the question because the probate court did not err in denying a wrongful death action defendant’s motion to intervene in the probate for the purpose of challenging appointment of the personal representative, and because that wrongful death action defendant likewise does not have standing to challenge that appointment in the wrongful death action, itself.

Facts/Discussion: Intervention: The Court reviewed “intervention”, including the cases which described their standard of review: Masinter v. Markstein and State Farm v. Colley. The Court stated they agreed with the district court’s reasoning and reliance upon Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home.
In the absence of an incompetent administrator, one can contest appointment of the administrator only if one is entitled, in one’s own right, to act as administrator. A potential wrongful death action defendant is not so entitled.
Standing: The existence of standing is reviewed de novo. The district court also relied upon standing in denying Halliburton’s access to a declaratory judgment in the probate action. Standing requires a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. The district court properly concluded that Halliburton had no genuine legal interest in the probate court’s appointment of Gunter as personal representative. The Court’s conclusion that Halliburton lacked standing to raise the issue carried over into the federal court wrongful death action as well. Halliburton’s personal stake is the same in both cases. Therefore, inasmuch as Halliburton lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the personal representative, it would be inappropriate for the Court to answer the underlying substantive question of the validity of the appointment.

Holding: A wrongful death action defendant does not have standing to challenge the appointment of the estate’s personal representative because a wrongful death action defendant does not have a personal stake or tangible interest in that appointment. Neither may a wrongful action defendant intervene in the probate estate action as a matter of right for the purpose of challenging the appointment of the personal representative. Finally, the district court sitting in probate did not err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention of the wrongful death action defendant into the probate estate action.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2yzd6m .