Am. Nat'l Bank v. Sara

• Decision Date: 21 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. S–10–0104.,S–10–0104.
• Citation: 2011 WY 9,246 P.3d 294
• Parties: AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust Dated March 14, 2003, Appellant (Petitioner),v.Joseph D. SARA, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

246 P.3d 294

2011 WY 9

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust Dated March 14, 2003, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.Joseph D. SARA, Appellee (Respondent).

No. S–10–0104.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 21, 2011.

Representing Appellant: Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton of Hageman & Brighton, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Hageman.

Representing Appellee: Scott W. Meier and Lucas E. Buckley of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Buckley.Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] American National Bank (ANB), acting as Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust, appeals the district court's denial of ANB's motion to enforce a settlement agreement between Louise J. Sara and Joseph D. Sara (Joseph). ANB is also appealing the district court's denial of attorneys' fees and costs associated with filing the motion to enforce. Finding that the district court erred in denying ANB's motion to enforce, we will reverse that portion of the district court's order with further instructions as detailed below, but we will uphold the district court's denial of an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did the district court err in finding that the current action was a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction to decide the matter?

2. Did the district court err in finding that the Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims did not discharge the mortgage and note at issue in this case?

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering the parties to pay their own attorneys' fees and costs?

FACTS

[¶ 3] The history of this case and the development of the current conflict dates back to 2000. A series of lawsuits, countersuits, and motions were filed in late 2000 and beyond, between members of the Sara family, against each other, personally, and in their capacity as personal representatives and trustees of various family trusts. The actions involved numerous issues arising out of squabbles over ownership and control of various real and personal property owned by the Sara family and trusts controlled by members of the Sara family. The disputes ultimately led to a Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of all Claims (Release), which Release was signed in October 2001, by all of the parties, both personally and in their capacity as personal representatives or trustees. As a result of the Release, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of all the actions previously filed by the parties. The district court then entered an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by all of the parties, dismissing with prejudice all of the parties' lawsuits. In addition to dismissing all of the lawsuits, and at the request of the parties, the district court also ordered that it would retain jurisdiction over the action in order to enforce the Release in the future.

[¶ 4] In May 2009, ANB, acting as Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust, filed a Motion to Enforce Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims.¹ ANB's motion was in response to a demand by Joseph for payment on a note secured by a mortgage on property belonging to the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust. The property, located at 422 West 3rd Avenue in Cheyenne, was transferred to the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust pursuant to the Release. Prior to the property being transferred, it was part of the Restated Dominic Sara Living Trust Agreement, controlled by Joseph as the Trustee. ANB's motion to enforce argued that the note and mortgage were discharged pursuant to the Release and Joseph's attempts to collect on the note violated the Release. The motion requested that the district court enforce the Release and find that the note and mortgage had been discharged by the Release. ANB also sought attorneys' fees and expenses associated with ANB's motion. The district court denied ANB's motion to enforce, holding that ANB's motion to enforce was actually a quiet title action and that the district court did not retain jurisdiction over such an action. The district court further ruled that to the extent it retained jurisdiction over any portion of ANB's motion to enforce, the Release did not discharge the note and mortgage. The district court also denied ANB's request for attorneys' fees and expenses. This appeal by ANB followed.

DISCUSSION

Did the district court err in finding that the current action was a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction to decide the matter?

[¶ 5] This question of whether a district court lacks jurisdiction to decide a matter is reviewed de novo. See William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 2009 WY 62, ¶ 9, 206 P.3d 722, 726 (Wyo.2009); Douglass v. Wyo. Dep't of Transp., 2008 WY 77, ¶ 9, 187 P.3d 850, 853 (Wyo.2008). The law in Wyoming relating to retained jurisdiction is clear: a court may retain jurisdiction over a stipulation or settlement agreement for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the stipulation or settlement agreement, if the order of dismissal so provides and the parties agree. Rawlinson v. Wallerich, 2006 WY 52, ¶ 12, 132 P.3d 204, 208–09 (Wyo.2006) (citing 8 [James Wm. Moore et al.,] Moore's Federal Practice [§] 41.34[[6][a], at 41–122, [h], at 41–125 (3d ed. (2010)] )).

[¶ 6] In response to ANB's Motion to Enforce Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims, the district court determined that ANB's motion was a quiet title action and, based on the Release, the district court did not retain jurisdiction over such an action. We disagree with the district court and hold that ANB's motion was not a quiet title action but, rather, was a motion to enforce the Release, which is exactly the kind of action over which the district court retained jurisdiction. The Release provides that “[t]he parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of this Release.” Additionally, the subsequent Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice entered by the parties provides that “[t]he parties also request that this Court retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purpose of enforcing the RELEASE, WAIVER AND SATISFACTION OF ALL CLAIMS agreed to by the parties.”

[¶ 7] In part, ANB's motion to enforce provides as follows:

American National Bank (ANB), Trustee of the Louise J. Sara Irrevocable Trust Dated March 14, 2003 (Louise Sara Trust) ... pursuant to the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice filed in the above-captioned matter, hereby moves this Honorable Court for an Order enforcing the “Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of all Claims” (“the Release”) in its favor. In support of this Motion, ANB states the following:

1. The Release was executed by all Plaintiffs, Defendants, Counter–Plaintiffs and Counter–Defendants on October 31, 2001, including Joseph D. Sara and Sharon L. Sara.

2. The Release fully and finally settled all claims originating out of lawsuits surrounding the property of Louise J. Sara and the Estate of Dominic Sara and the Dominic Sara Living Trust, including mortgages.

3. Joseph D. and Sharon L. Sara have attempted to collect on a certain “mortgage” which allegedly encumbered real property that was in dispute as part of the above-captioned lawsuits. Specifically, Mr. and Mrs. Sara claim to have a “mortgage” that allegedly encumbers the home where Louise J. Sara (Joseph D. Sara's mother) lived prior to her passing, which property is located at 422 West 3rd Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

....

5. The “mortgage” was fully and finally released, waived and satisfied under the terms of the Release.

6. The real property allegedly encumbered by the “mortgage,” referred to in the “mortgage” as “Tract Two,” was released from the “mortgage,” and as of October 31, 2001, the “mortgage” had no further legal effect as to the property.

....

WHEREFORE, ANB respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order enforcing the Release in its favor....

[¶ 8] It is clear that the parties requested, and the district court ordered, that the district court retain jurisdiction in order to enforce the Release. ANB's motion was in response to Joseph's attempts to collect on the note and mortgage, which note and mortgage existed prior to the Release. Furthermore, the note and mortgage related to property and parties subject to the Release. Consequently, Joseph's attempts to collect on the note and mortgage relating to this particular property, against a party to the Release, directly implicated the terms and conditions of the Release. ANB's motion sought to enforce the Release, which was the purpose of the district court's retained jurisdiction. The question was whether the note and mortgage were released in the settlement. This was not a quiet title action.

Did the district court err in finding that the Release, Waiver and Satisfaction of All Claims did not discharge the mortgage and note at issue?

[¶ 9] Although the district court determined that ANB's motion was really a quiet title action and therefore the district court did not retain jurisdiction, the district court went on to hold that to the extent the district court did retain jurisdiction over the matter that the Release did not discharge the mortgage and note. We find that conclusion to be in error. The determination of this issue requires this Court to interpret the Release entered into by the parties.

[¶ 10] “A settlement agreement is a contract and, therefore, subject to the same legal principles that apply to any contract.” Dobson v. Portrait Homes, Inc., 2005 WY 95, ¶ 9, 117 P.3d 1200, 1204 (Wyo.2005); see also Dorr v. Wyo. Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 2006 WY 144, ¶ 16, 146 P.3d 943, 953 (Wyo.2006). In that regard, we have said the following relating to the interpretation of contracts:

The primary focus is on determining the intent of the parties to the contract. The initial question is whether the language...