Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court after a trial quieting title of certain property in favor of Appellees, the owners of the Warbonnet Ranch, after finding that Appellant, the owner of the Burnett Ranch, failed to meet its prima facie case establishing the elements of adverse possession, holding that there was no error.The Burnett Ranch was enclosed by a perimeter fence, within which were three non-contiguous parcels of property (subject property) that were part of the Warbonnet Ranch and deeded to Appellees. Appellant brought this action asserting that it owned the subject property by adverse possession through its use of the property for grazing cattle and by maintaining the permitter fence. The district court entered summary judgment for Appellees, but the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact existed. On remand, after a trial, the trial court entered judgment for Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Little Medicine Creek Ranch, Inc. v. d'Elia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Albany County approving ConnectGen Albany County LLC's application for a Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) permit to construct a wind farm on Albany County land, holding that Appellants were not entitled to relief.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) contrary to Appellants' argument on appeal, ConnectGen was not required to obtain a conditional use permit in addition to the WECS special use permit; (2) the Board's approval of the WECS special use permit was not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) Appellants failed to establish that the Board's approval of the WECS special use permit was a taking of private property in violation of Wyo. Const. art. 1, 32. View "Aanonsen v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Albany County" on Justia Law

The Morningstars contracted to purchase a residential property from the Robisons, who intended to buy a nearby vacant lot and build a new house. When the lot they wished to buy was purchased by someone else, the Robisons failed to comply with the terms of the contract with the Morningstars. The Morningstars sought specific performance and monetary damages. The district court found the Robisons breached the contract, but denied the request for specific performance and awarded monetary damages.The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed. The district court erred in placing the burden on the Morningstars to prove monetary damages were an inadequate or impractical remedy and abused its discretion when it found specific performance was not an appropriate remedy. After finding only one of the special equities factors weighed in favor of the Robisons, the court essentially rewrote the contract to allow the Robisons to cancel because their preferred lot was unavailable. The Robisons admit they “had no legal recourse to cancel.” On remand, when determining if any monetary damages should be awarded in addition to specific performance, the court’s “guiding principle” should be to relate the contract back to August 2021, and place the Morningstars in as nearly the same position as they would have been in if the Robisons had not breached the contract. View "Morningstar v. Robison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part and reversed in part the orders of the probate court and district court in these probate and partition matters, holding that remand was required.Dwight and Betty Lyman, as Trustees of their living trust (Lyman Trust), owned a parcel of property as tenants in common with George Fisher and another parcel in common with George's deceased parents. George sold his parents' interests in the two parcels to the Childs Trust. Lyman Trust filed a petition in the district court seeking to partition the parcels and filed a motion in the probate court seeking to set aside the sale. The probate court denied the motion, and the district court dismissed the partition petition without prejudice for failure to join Childs Trust as a required party. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed Lyman Trust's appeal of the probate court's actions, holding that Lyman Trust lacked standing in the Fisher probate action; and (2) reversed the district court's judgment dismissing Lyman Trust's partition action, holding that the court erred by dismissing the action rather than ordering the joinder of Childs Trust, and dismissal was not harmless. View "Lyman v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Felix Felicis, LLC's (Felix) application to vacate an arbitrator award in favor of Riva Ridge Owners Association (RROA) in this dispute over annual assessments, holding that the district court did not err in denying the application.This litigation arose after RROA's site committee rejected Felix's plans to build a home on its tract in the Riva Ridge subdivision. The attorney fees and costs RROA incurred during the litigation RROA ratably levied upon all tract owners in the subdivision via annual assessments. Felix refused to pay a portion of them based on its belief that RROA was not authorized by the restrictive covenants to assess attorney fees and costs against the tract owners. Felix later submitted its dispute with RROA to binding arbitration. The arbitrator granted summary judgment for RROA and awarded it a total of $334,890. Felix moved to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to consider Felix's affirmative defenses. The district court denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Felix failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator made a manifest mistake of the law in granting summary judgment for RROA. View "Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Plaintiffs did not adversely possess their northern neighbors deeded property in the Bighorn Mountains because their use was presumptively permissive, holding that the district court did not clearly err.Plaintiffs' fancy had enclosed portions of Defendant's deeded property within Plaintiffs' property since the 1950s. Plaintiffs brought this suit requesting that the district court quiet title in the disputed lands. The district court concluded that the fence was built for convenience, and therefore, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of actual notice to Defendant of their hostile use of the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision quieting title in Defendant and ejecting Plaintiffs from the property, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Lyman v. Childs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing this action brought by Sweetwater Station, LLC (Sweetwater) against the Sweetwater Station Homeowners Association (HOA) in this dispute over the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) applicable to the subdivision Sweetwater Station Addition, holding that the district court erred in dismissing Sweetwater's claims.In 2020, the HOA unilaterally recorded an amendment to the CCRs that affected the rights of the declarant, Sweetwater. Sweetwater sued the HOA and its members, seeking a declaration that the amendment was invalid and also asserting claims for quiet title, slander of title, and interference with a prospective contract. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim after finding that the amendment to the CCRs was valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in dismissing Sweetwater's declaratory judgment and quiet title claims because the amendment provisions of the CCRs were ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent; and (2) Sweetwater adequately pled its claims for slander of title and interference with a prospective contract. View "Sweetwater Station, LLC v. Pedri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on his claim of adverse possession of one-tenth of an acre of Defendants' property, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.On appeal, Defendants argued that Plaintiff could not show adverse possession because there was a factual question as to whether Plaintiff's use of the property was permissive under the theory of neighborly accommodation. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff established a prima facie claim of adverse possession which Defendants failed to rebut; and (2) there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff. View "Kudar v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of Plaintiff on its action for declaratory judgment and quiet title, concluding that a right-of-way and access easement over a twenty-foot-wide strip of property connecting a public road to land now owned by Plaintiff was appurtenant and continued to benefit Plaintiff, holding that there was no error.Defendant's predecessor granted a right-of-way and access easement over the property at issue, but Defendant denied Plaintiff access across the easement, claiming that the easement was in gross and provided access only to Plaintiff's predecessor in interest. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of appurtenance. View "Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court entering judgment in favor of the Town of Dubois and dismissing Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action against the Town seeking to reclaim 30.17 acres of real property, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff sought to reclaim property that the Town previously attempted to condemn but ultimately acquired through a settlement agreement with Plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the settlement agreement satisfied, as a matter of law, the three elements of waiver and did not contravene the public policy behind the Wyoming Eminent Domain Act; and (2) therefore, the Town was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Colton v. Town of Dubois" on Justia Law