Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

FIB filed a complaint against Dishman for judicial foreclosure. The district court granted FIB a partial summary judgment for the principal due, accrued interest, and most of FIB’s costs. The court later held a bench trial on FEB’s request for attorney fees and granted most of the requested fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by allowing FIB’s detailed attorney fee statement into evidence when FIB did not produce it until just before trial, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees associated with FIB’s efforts to withhold the detailed fee statement and by awarding fees incurred in unnecessary and unproductive work; and (3) in the interests of equity, the fees incurred by FIB after the summary judgment are reduced to account for FIB’s discovery violations. Remanded. View "Dishman v. First Interstate Bank" on Justia Law

First American Title Insurance Company issued title insurance policies to the predecessors of North Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP. When North Fork learned that Bunker Road, which crosses three of North Fork’s properties, was established as a county road, North Fork submitted notices of claims under the title insurance policies, asserting that First American failed to disclose to one of North Fork’s predecessors that Bunker Road burdened the properties and that it was damaged by the Bunker Road encumbrance. First American did not respond to North Fork’s claims, and North Fork filed suit against First American. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of First American, concluding that North Fork did not meet the definition of “insured” under the title insurance policies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that North Fork is a covered insured under the terms of the title insurance policy. Remanded. View "N. Fork Land & Cattle, LLLP v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A road crosses the corner of a parcel of property owned by Boyd Van Fleet. A dispute arose between Van Fleet and Appellants concerning Appellants’ ownership and right to use that portion of the road in conjunction with bentonite mining operations. Appellants sued Van Fleet, asserting several claims, including prescriptive easement and adverse possession. Van Fleet counterclaimed for, inter alia, trespass/nuisance, damage to property, ejectment, and an injunction prohibiting Appellants from using the portion of the road on his property. The district court entered a judgment ruling generally in favor of Van Fleet. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellants failed to prove their claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement and that Van Fleet owned the land where the road traversed his property free of any right for them to use it. View "Wyo-Ben, Inc., v. Van Fleet" on Justia Law

Frank Forelle and William Fix were neighbors in a subdivision. After Forelle built a fence on his property along the border of the parties’ adjoining properties, Fix complained that the fence violated the subdivision’s covenants. Fix, an attorney who represented himself in the matter, prevailed on his claim in the district court. Relying on a covenant provision regarding reimbursement for costs incurred in enforcing the covenants, Fix subsequently sought attorney fees. The district court awarded Fix attorney fees, but later, in an amended judgment, concluded that Fix could not recover fees for the legal work he performed because he did not actually incur any fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Fix was never liable for or subject to his own attorney fees, he did not incur any fees, and therefore, Fix was not entitled to recover attorney fees for the work he performed in the litigation. View "Fix v. Forelle" on Justia Law

After Peggy Gheen died, her sons discovered quitclaim deeds Mrs. Gheen had executed to them for her interests in a residential property and a farm. The Gheen sons subsequently recorded the deeds. The State ex rel. Dep’t of Health, Div. of Healthcare Financing/Equitycare (Department) filed a lien against both properties to recover the cost of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of Mrs. Gheen before her death. The Gheen sons filed a petition to remove a false lien and quiet title, claiming they were the rightful owners of the property. The Department moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had a valid lien because Mrs. Gheen owned the properties at the time of her death and the quitclaim deeds were not valid. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department’s Medicaid lien was valid as to the properties. View "Gheen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

The Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch was divided by a series of conveyances between entities controlled by a brother (“Brother”) and sister (“Sister”), who disagreed on the validity of language purporting to reserve or convey an easement from Sister’s property across Brother’s property. Brother filed a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief, asserting that the requirements for finding an express or implied easement had not been met. Sister counterclaimed, asserting that a valid easement existed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Brother, concluding (1) the parties failed sufficiently to describe the easement, and therefore, the express easement was void; and (2) because the parties specifically contemplated an easement but failed to effectuate their intent, implying an easement would be inappropriate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that that an express easement existed across Brother’s property. View "Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

After conducting a compliance examination of CalCon Mutual Mortgage Corporation (“CalCon”) the Wyoming Department of Audit, Division of Banking (“Division”) determined that CalCon had violated the Wyoming Residential Mortgage Practices Act in six separate brokering transactions by receiving application fees and “yield spread premiums” exceeding those previously disclosed to its customers. The Division requested that CalCon refund the application fees and yield spread premiums to the borrowers. CalCon objected and requested a contesting case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). The OAH determined that CalCon had violated the Act. The State Banking Commissioner subsequently issued a final order directing CalCon to reimburse the fees. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commissioner properly interpreted Wyo. Stat. Ann. 40-23-114 in determining that CalCon was required to provide a written explanation of increased application fees and yield spread premiums in the transactions at issue. View "Calcon Mut. Mortgage Corp. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Audit, Div. of Banking" on Justia Law

Since 1991, Plaintiffs accessed their parcel of land by traveling over Defendants’ property pursuant to an easement for a road right of way. When Defendants obstructed Plaintiffs’ use of their easement, Plaintiffs filed an action for a declaratory judgment determining the parties’ rights and duties under the easement and a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from interfering with their use of the easement. After a trial, the district court ordered Defendants to remove obstructions from the easement. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for order to show cause, asserting that Defendants should be held in contempt of court for violating the prior judgment by failing to remove the obstructions. The district court found Defendants in contempt of court after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) acted within its discretion in holding Defendants in civil contempt; but (2) erred when it ordered Defendants to pay a penalty of $100 per day to the court until the obstructions were removed. View "Meckem v. Carter" on Justia Law

In 1997, the Courtenay C. Davis Foundation and Amy Davis (together, “Davis Interests”) entered into an agreement with the University of Wyoming Foundation and the Colorado State University Research Foundation (together, “University Foundations”) in which the Davis Interests donated land and other interests to the University Foundations subject to the terms of the agreement. In 2011, the University Foundations decided to sell the gifted property and listed it for sale. In 2012, the Davis Interests filed an action against the University Foundations seeking to enjoin the sale of the property. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the donation from the Davis Interests to the University Foundations was a gift, that the agreement did not create an implied trust, and that only the attorney general had standing to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. View "Courtenay C. & Lucy Patten Davis Found. v. Colo. State Univ. Research Found." on Justia Law

After Appellants purchased vacant property in Laramie they discovered that an apartment building on an adjacent property encroached five feet onto their property. Appellants brought an action against the owners of the apartment building (Appellees) seeking a declaration that they owned the encroaching portion of the apartment building, an order requiring that the building be partitioned and that Appellees be ejected from the building, and an apportionment of rental income earned from the apartment building. Appellees counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that they had an implied easement over portions of Appellants’ parcel occupied by the apartment building and requesting an injunction to enjoin Appellants from interfering with the implied easement. The district court (1) concluded Appellants had no ownership interest in the apartment building and denied the remainder of Appellants’ requests; and (2) ruled that Appellees were entitled to an implied easement on Appellants’ property to accommodate the apartment building and enjoined Appellants from interfering with Appellees’ use of that easement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that (1) Appellants had no ownership interest in the apartment building; and (2) Appellees held an implied easement on Appellants’ property. View "Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC" on Justia Law