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 2012 WY 47

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: LARAMIE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT v. KENNETH COOK

Docket Number: S-11-0152

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465279

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Sylvia Lee Hackl, Deputy Laramie County Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Stephen H. Kline and Melinda S. McCorkle, Kline Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. Kline

Date of Decision: March 28, 2012

Facts: Kenneth Cook was terminated from his employment as a Laramie County Sheriff Department (Sheriff Department) deputy for violating department policies related to report writing and firearms security.  Deputy Cook requested a contested case hearing before the Laramie County Sheriff (Sheriff), who upheld his dismissal from the department.  He then petitioned the district court for review.  The district court reversed, concluding that the record did not contain substantial evidence demonstrating cause existed to dismiss Deputy Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies.  The Sheriff’s Department appealed.  The Court agreed with the district court that the record does not substantiate the Sheriff’s findings that there was sufficient cause to terminate Deputy Cook’s employment with the Sheriff’s Department.

Issues: Both parties present the same issue for our review:  Whether the Laramie County Sheriff’s decision to terminate Appellee from his employment as a deputy sheriff was supported by substantial evidence, was in accordance with law, or was arbitrary, capricious, or constituted an abuse of discretion.

Holdings:  The Court affirmed the district court’s decision reversing the Sheriff’s order.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 46

Summary of Decision March 27, 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:  DENISE MENDENHALL  v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wyoming insurance company

Docket Number: S-11-0189

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465278

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Jeffrey J. Gonda and Amanda K. Roberts of Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. Roberts and Mr. Gonda.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): George E. Powers, Jr. and J. Zachary Courson of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. Powers.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2012

Facts: The appellant, Denise Mendenhall (Mendenhall), was injured when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  The other vehicle involved in the accident, a 1997 Ford truck, was listed on two different insurance policies:  an Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) policy issued to Jeremy Lucas (Lucas) and a Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Mountain West) policy issued to Wyoming Electric Company, Inc. (Wyoming Electric).  The Appellee, Mountain West, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting that the district court find that Mountain West did not have to cover the truck under the policy because the person driving the truck at the time could not be considered an “insured.”  Mendenhall and Mountain West filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mountain West, finding that the owner of Wyoming Electric had given the truck to Lucas and, therefore, the truck was no longer covered under the company’s insurance policy.  Mendenhall appeals the district court’s decision, arguing that Mountain West should be required to pay under the policy because the truck was titled and registered in the name of Wyoming Electric, and was still listed as a specific vehicle on the Mountain West policy. 

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it determined that ownership of the 1997 Ford truck passed by an inter vivos gift from Wyoming Electric to Lucas before the date of the accident.

Holdings:  Ownership of the 1997 Ford truck passed from Nelson to Lucas via an inter vivos gift in January 2008, and before Mendenhall was injured.  Therefore, on the date of the accident, Wyoming Electric no longer owned the truck and it was no longer covered under the Mountain West insurance policy.  The district court did not err when it determined that Mountain West did not have to cover Mendenhall’s injuries. Affirmed.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 45

Summary of Decision March 27, 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: BRAD CARNAHAN and BRENDA CARNAHAN v. REX I. LEWIS and VICKIE R. LEWIS, as Trustees of the REX I. LEWIS LIVING TRUST and the VICKIE R. LEWIS LIVING TRUST

Docket Number: S-11-0122

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465277

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Karen Budd-Falen, Franklin J. Falen, Kathryn J.B. Morrow of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. Morrow.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Nicholas G.J. Healey and Timothy L. Woznick of Dray, Dyekman, Reed & Healey, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. Healey.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2012

Facts: Rex I. Lewis and Vickie R. Lewis, as trustees of the Rex I. Lewis Living Trust and the Vickie R. Lewis Living Trust, (Lewises) and Brad and Brenda Carnahan (Carnahans) own property in a subdivision in Laramie County.  The Lewises filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Carnahans did not have authority to block their use of a public easement to access their property, an injunction requiring the Carnahans to remove a fence they erected across the easement and nuisance damages allegedly caused by the blocked easement.  The Carnahans filed counterclaims for ejectment and trespass against the Lewises and a third party complaint against the Lewises and Laramie County (which they alleged had an interest in the easement) to have title to the easement quieted in them. 

Both parties moved for summary judgment and, after a hearing, the district court issued a decision letter ruling that the Lewises had standing to bring their claim for declaratory relief but not to collect damages for nuisance; Laramie County was not a necessary party; issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment as to the Carnahans’ statute of limitations and laches defenses; and the Board of Laramie County Commissioners’ (Board) 2003 denial of an application to replat the subdivision did not estop the Carnahans from maintaining a quiet title claim.  Subsequently, the district court ruled that an affidavit recorded in 1994 was not effective to vacate the public easement because it did not comply with state statute.  Consistent with that ruling, the district court dismissed the Carnahans’ trespass claim.  The district court set for trial the Carnahans’ statute of limitations and laches defenses.  After trial, the district court concluded neither the statute of limitations nor laches barred the Lewises’ declaratory judgment action.  Further, the district court declared that Laramie County continued to hold the easement in trust for the public, meaning the Lewises have the right to use the easement and the Carnahans do not have the right to obstruct their use.  The Carnahans appealed.

Issues:  The Court re-phrased the issues the Carnahans presented as follows:

                1.            Whether the district court correctly held:

                                a.            the Lewises had standing to seek declaratory relief;

                                b.            the Lewises’ claims were not barred by the statute of limitations;

                                c.             the Lewises’ claims were not barred by the doctrine of laches;

                          d.            the Carnahans’ predecessors-in-interest did not properly vacate the public       easement in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-101 et seq.; and

                    e.            the Carnahans’ trespass claim must be dismissed.

The Lewises contended the district court ruling was correct on all of the above issues and raised the additional issue that the Carnahans’ appeal should be dismissed as premature.

Holdings:  The Court found that this action resulted from an unfortunate set of circumstances.  Laramie County played a direct role in allowing a private landowner to build a home on a public easement.  Despite the seeming inequities, however, the law does not provide a means to rectify the situation.  It would be this Court’s hope that the parties, together with the County, could work together to resolve this matter by relocating Mountain View Loop a reasonable distance from the Carnahans’ home to allow them at least to sell the property if it is not acceptable to them to live there with the road crossing their property.  While it is difficult to tell without actually seeing the property, it appears from some of the trial exhibits that where the current road jogs to the east and runs into the residence, it could instead head southeast across what appears to be prairie and rejoin the existing road where it turns west toward the Lewises’ property. 

The Lewises had standing to maintain an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.  Their claims were not barred by the statute of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches.  The Griffiths’ 1994 Affidavit did not comply with Wyoming law and was not effective, therefore, to vacate the easement dedicated to public use through the subdivision.  The Lewises have the right to use Mountain View Loop, including the portion that crosses the Carnahans’ property.  The Carnahans are permanently enjoined from obstructing access along Mountain View Loop.  The orders and judgment of the district court are affirmed

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 44

Summary of Decision March 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:  In the Matter of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics’ Findings and Recommendations with Respect to the Honorable Tony S. Lopez, Municipal Judge, Second Judicial District, Albany County, Laramie, Wyoming

Docket Number: J-12-0001

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465276

Order of Public Censure

Date of Order: March 23, 2012

The Court, after a careful review of the “Commission’s Findings and Recommendation” finds that the Honorable Tony S. Lopez, Laramie Municipal Judge, should be publicly censured for the conduct described in the “Commission’s Findings and Recommendation.”

Summary 2012 WY 43

Summary of Decision March 21, 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: Chad Faron Mebane v. The State of Wyoming 

Docket Number: S-11-0196

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465274

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellant Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 21, 2012

Facts: The Appellant, Chad Faron Mebane, appealed from his convictions of possession of methamphetamine, a misdemeanor, and two counts of delivery of methamphetamine.  Mebane asserted that the trial court erred by failing to advise him before he testified that he had a right not to testify and, as a result, his choice to testify was not made intelligently. 

Issues: Mebane raised the following issue on appeal: Did the trial court’s failure to inform Mr. Mebane of his constitutional right to remain silent and not testify result in an uninformed waiver of that right and result in Mr. Mebane incriminating himself at trial?

The State rephrased the issue as: Did the district court commit plain error by failing to advise Mebane of his right to remain silent immediately before he testified on his own behalf at trial?

Holdings: The Court found that Mebane was adequately advised by the trial court at arraignment of his right to remain silent and held that he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent. Having concluded that no error occurred in this case, the Court found no need to proceed with the remainder of the plain error analysis.  The judgment and sentence of the district court was affirmed.

District Judge Sanderson delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 42

Summary of Decision March 20, 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:  Daren S. Berg and Jennifer A. Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Company, a Wyoming Corporation

Docket Number: S-11-0229

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465272

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant):  Daren S. Berg and Jennifer A. Berg, Pro se, Edgemont, SD.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Patrick J. Crank of Nicholas & Crank, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2012

Facts: Daren S. Berg and Jennifer A. Berg (the Bergs) filed this pro se appeal from summary judgment entered against them in an action to collect on a promissory note. 

Issues: Ten arguments are listed by the Bergs:

1.                  The district court erred in denying Bergs their preserved right to a jury trial.

2.                  The district court erred in holding that there was no breech [sic] of contract against Torrington Livestock Cattle Company.

3.                  The district court erred in holding secured collateral on a promissary [sic] note did not have to be apllied [sic] to the actual note.

4.                  The district court failed on all counts to prove or provide any evidence of the Bergs hindering or delaying Torrington Livestock Cattle Company.

5.                  The district court erred in allowing perjured statements.

6.                  The district court continiuosly [sic] proved they were biased against the Bergs and denied them of their Constitutional and Civil rights.

7.                  Does the district court have the authority to dictate where a business or individuals may conduct business or financial transactions?

8.                  The district court erred in its ruling on the bank security agreement.

9.                  Torrington Livestock Cattle Company has received $103,151.71 in payment on a bank note that only had a balance of $53,569.60.  This was low value auction prices.

10.              Gross negligence on behalf of the Goshen County Sheriff’s department should be filed for the seizure and then losing Bergs’ property.  The department failed to provide accurate records and secure the property until it was sold.

Holdings:  Based upon the deficient brief offered by the Bergs and their failure to follow the rules of appellate procedure, the decision of the trial court is summarily affirmed.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court.