Little Med. Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D'Elia
| Decision Date | 10 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | S-19-0001 |
| Citation | 450 P.3d 222 |
| Parties | LITTLE MEDICINE CREEK RANCH, INC., a Wyoming corporation, f/k/a Burnett Ranch, Inc., Appellant (Defendant/Counterclaimant), v. Serge M. D’ELIA and Lilian C.S.L. D’Elia, Trustees of the D’Elia Family Trust and Wagonhound Land & Livestock, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellees (Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: David G. Ditto of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Eric C. Rusnak of K&L Gates LLP, Washington, DC; Michael E. Zeliger and Ranjini Acharya of K&L Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Argument by Ms. Acharya.
Representing Appellee Serge M. d’Elia and Lilian C.S.L. d’ Elia, Trustees of the d’Elia Family Trust: Peter C. Nicolaysen and Pamala M. Brondos of Nicolaysen & Associates, P.C., Casper, Wyoming; Keith P. Tyler, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Nicolaysen.
Representing Appellee Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company, LLC: Kermit C. Brown and William L. Hiser of Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Hiser.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] This is an adverse possession case involving two cattle ranches. The Appellant, Little Medicine Creek Ranch, Inc., f/k/a Burnett Ranch, Inc., owns a ranch in Albany County that has historically been known as Burnett Ranch. The Appellees—Serge and Lilian d’Elia, Trustees of the d’Elia Family Trust, and Wagonhound Land & Livestock, LLC—are the most recent owners of Warbonnet Ranch.1 The Appellees filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Petition to Quiet Title with respect to three non-contiguous parcels of property that are deeded to the Appellees but fenced into Burnett Ranch. The Appellant counterclaimed for adverse possession of those parcels and moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the Appellant’s motion and granted summary judgment to the Appellees. It also denied the Appellant’s subsequent motion to alter or amend its order. Because genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse and remand for trial.
[¶2] The Appellant raises three issues on appeal, rephrased as:
The Appellees phrase the third issue differently:
3. Whether the record and Wyoming law support the District Court’s finding of permissive use based on multiple factors including the fence-out doctrine and neighborly accommodation.
[¶3] The dispositive issue is whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.2
[¶4] This fact-intensive adverse possession case involves three non-contiguous parcels of land that are deeded to Warbonnet Ranch’s owners but located within Burnett Ranch. Burnett Ranch’s perimeter is fenced, except where land characteristics make fencing impossible, but the parcels are not separately fenced within the ranch. Parcel 1 consists of approximately 640 acres and has also been referred to as "Lindsey Place" and "the peach orchard." Parcel 2 consists of 40 acres. Parcel 3 consists of two 120-acre parcels, 210 of which are fenced into Burnett Ranch and subject to this litigation.3
[¶5] The following map depicts the general location of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 within Burnett Ranch:
The map does not, however, clearly depict Burnett Ranch’s perimeter fence or Burnett Ranch’s location relative to Warbonnet Ranch.
[¶6] The history of the two ranches and the three families—the Burnetts, the Crosses, and the d’Elias—who have been associated with them over the years provides important background. The Burnetts’ ancestors homesteaded much of the land that constitutes Burnett Ranch. Richard Burnett managed the ranch for approximately 65 years; Wally Burnett managed the ranch next; and John Burnett became president of Burnett Ranch, Inc. in 2000 and managed it for the next sixteen years. The Burnetts sold their cattle in 2000 to avoid foreclosure and continuously leased the ranch to various individuals—including Lynn Carter, Jim Hageman, Art Hageman, Warren Manning, and the Crosses—from 2000 until 2016 for grazing. The leases included use of Parcels 1, 2, and 3. The Crosses leased the ranch for summer pasture from 2007 or 2008 until 2016.
[¶7] Warbonnet Ranch borders Burnett Ranch to the east and north. The Crosses owned Warbonnet Ranch off-and-on from the 1950s until they sold it to Farm Credit in 1985. Mr. d’Elia purchased the ranch in 1987 and, a couple of years later, he conveyed it to himself and his wife as Trustees of the d’Elia Family Trust. Wagonhound purchased Warbonnet Ranch in 2017.
[¶8] The dispute over Parcels 1, 2, and 3 arose when Wagonhound sought to purchase Burnett Ranch. When Shane Cross learned of the intended purchase, he asked Wagonhound whether he could continue to lease the ranch if Wagonhound acquired it. Wagonhound indicated that it would not lease the ranch. As a result, the Crosses sought to purchase Burnett Ranch themselves. A bidding war ensued and the Burnetts ultimately sold the ranch to the Crosses. Wagonhound’s request to enter Burnett Ranch to survey the parcels and potential access routes to them was subsequently denied.
[¶9] In February 2017, the Appellees filed a complaint against the Appellant for declaratory judgment and to quiet title to the parcels.4 The Appellant answered and counterclaimed for adverse possession of the parcels. After completing discovery, the Appellant moved for summary judgment on its adverse possession claim. The Appellees responded with a Joint Statement of Disputed Material Facts pursuant to W.R.C.P. 56.1(b) and a joint traverse in which they argued that: (1) the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to the Appellant’s claim that its grazing and the Burnett Ranch’s fence were sufficient to establish adverse possession, (2) the evidence did not support a finding of hostile possession or use for the required ten-year period, (3) genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether use of Parcels 1 and 3 was permissive, and (4) the Appellees were entitled to summary judgment with respect to Parcel 2 because no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding permissive use of that parcel due to a range line agreement.
[¶10] The court held a hearing on the Appellant’s motion in September 2018. After the hearing, the court issued a notice pursuant to W.R.C.P. 56(f). The notice stated that, at the hearing, the Appellees sought denial of the Appellant’s motion or, in the alternative, summary judgment in their favor pursuant to W.R.C.P. 56(f). The court allowed the parties time to respond to its notice with additional briefing.
[¶11] The court ultimately denied the Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, granted summary judgment to the Appellees, and quieted title in the Appellees. It determined that the evidence, even viewed in the Appellant’s favor, could not establish a prima facie case for adverse possession of the three parcels. It reasoned that there was nothing hostile or significant about Burnett Ranch’s grazing activity such that it put the owners of those parcels on clear notice that their ownership was in jeopardy, at least not until 2015 to 2016. It found no evidence that Burnett Ranch purposely drove livestock onto the disputed parcels or utilized the land for the duration of the growing season. With regard to the fence-out doctrine, it determined that the Warbonnet owners’ failure to fence the parcels within Burnett Ranch equated to permission to allow Burnett Ranch’s cattle to wander on the unfenced land. It also determined that Warbonnet Ranch allowed Burnett Ranch to use the parcels as part of a neighborly accommodation. The court therefore concluded that the Appellant "failed to establish a prima facie case of adverse possession" and "[r]ather, judgment as a matter of law in favor of [the Appellees] [wa]s warranted."
[¶12] The Appellant timely moved to alter or amend the order under W.R.C.P. 59(e) and requested the court vacate its order and grant it summary judgment or hold a trial. The Appellant argued the court improperly: granted the Appellees summary judgment on the basis that the Appellant did not meet its burden, determined witness credibility, adopted the Appellees’ disputed material facts as undisputed, and applied the fence-out doctrine. It submitted several hundred pages of additional evidence in support of its motion. The court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
[¶13] Additional facts are set forth below as necessary.
[¶14] "Summary judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mantle v. N. Star Energy & Constr. LLC , 2019 WY 29, ¶ 110, 437 P.3d 758, 794 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Bogdanski v. Budzik , 2018 WY 7, ¶ 18, 408 P.3d 1156, 1160 (Wyo. 2018) ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prancing Antelope I, LLC v. Saratoga Inn Overlook Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...Hulme , 2020 WY 31, ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 1225, 1233 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Little Med. Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D'Elia , 2019 WY 103, ¶ 15, 450 P.3d 222, 228 (Wyo. 2019) ). "Summary judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the prevailing party is entitled to judgme......
-
Lyman v. Childs
...claim by showing the use was permissive. Kudar, 2022 WY 159, ¶ 16, 521 P.3d at 993 (citing Little Med. Creek Ranch, 2019 WY 103, ¶ 18, 450 P.3d at 228). One way to rebut a claim is to show fence dividing two properties was a fence of convenience, which creates a permissive use in the advers......
-
Ramirez v. Brown
...did not complain about the machine's safety on summary judgment. See Little Med. Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D'Elia , 2019 WY 103, ¶ 40, 450 P.3d 222, 233 (Wyo. 2019). Examining the record from the vantage point most favorable to Mr. Ramirez, and giving him the benefit of all favorable inferences ......
-
O'Hare v. Hulme
...prima facie case that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Little Medicine Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D’Elia , 2019 WY 103, ¶ 14, 450 P.3d 222, 227-28 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Mantle v. N. Star. Energy & Constr. LLC , 2019 WY 29, ¶ 110, 437 P.3d 758, 794-95 (Wyo. 2019) ). Further, we evaluate the......