Gilbreath v. Wallace, 86-272

• Decision Date: 25 June 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-272,86-272
• Citation: 738 P.2d 717
• Parties: R.A. GILBREATH and Esther Gilbreath, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Lenora WALLACE, Maxey Wallace, her husband, Doris Huckfeldt, Fredrick Huckfeldt, her husband, Helen DeGering, Alma Grace Lemons, Ernest Lemons, her husband, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 717

738 P.2d 717

R.A. GILBREATH and Esther Gilbreath, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Lenora WALLACE, Maxey Wallace, her husband, Doris Huckfeldt, Fredrick Huckfeldt, her husband, Helen DeGering, Alma Grace Lemons, Ernest Lemons, her husband, Appellees (Defendants).

No. 86-272.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 25, 1987.

George A. Clarke, Lusk, for appellants.

Doyle J. Davies, Lusk, for appellees Wallaces, DeGering, and Lemonses.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

CARDINE, Justice.

The trial court granted defendants summary judgment in this suit for reformation of a deed. We affirm.

Plaintiff Esther Gilbreath and defendants Lenora Wallace, Doris Huckfeldt, Helen DeGering and Alma Grace Lemons are the daughters of Walter L. and Nora Eva Klemke, both deceased. The other named parties are husbands of the women. In 1968, the Klemkes and Gilbreaths signed an Agreement for Warranty Deed providing for a conveyance of some 1200 acres of land in Niobrara County to Esther Gilbreath and her husband. The agreement did not reserve minerals to the Klemkes. The warranty deed, executed pursuant to the agreement, did reserve the minerals. It was not seen by Gilbreaths before being placed in escrow. Walter Klemke, the surviving parent, died in 1976. During the probate of his estate, the Gilbreaths acknowledged his ownership of the mineral estate. The Gilbreaths' attorney, George A. Clarke, wrote to the attorney for the estate on December 30, 1977:

"We must also object to the appraisal of the oil, gas and mineral rights shown on Schedule A of the * * * Inventory and Appraisement. In the deed to the Gilbreaths, which has been escrowed with the Stockmans National Bank, mineral rights were reserved. * * * [T]his property has never, in its history, been leased for minerals of any sort. Many years ago, the Wyoming Supreme Court stated * * * that mineral rights in an unproven area were totally speculative and therefore without value."

The reserved mineral interest was distributed as part of the estate, each daughter receiving a one-fifth share.

On November 8, 1985, plaintiffs Gilbreath filed this suit seeking reformation of the deed to omit the reservation of minerals, alleging mutual mistake and fraud. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The plaintiffs have appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment.

It is well established that this court will uphold the action of the district court for any proper reason appearing of record. Walker v. Karpan, Wyo., 726 P.2d 82 (1986); Ely v. Kirk, Wyo., 707 P.2d 706 (1985); Walter v. Moore, Wyo., 700 P.2d 1219 (1985); Anderson v. Bauer, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316 (1984). In the case at bar, that proper reason is the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

"The principle, while denominated judicial estoppel, is sometimes referred to as a doctrine which estops a party to play fast and loose with the courts or to trifle with judicial proceedings. It is an expression of the maxim that one cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. A party will just not be allowed to maintain inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, as here. 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 117, pp. 624-625.

"The role of judicial estoppel has been accepted in this state. Hatten Realty Co., v. Baylies, 1930, 42 Wyo. 69, 89-93, 290 P. 561, 72 A.L.R. 587. It was there held that where a man is successful in a position taken in a previous court proceeding, that position rises to the position of conclusiveness. It constitutes a solemn and sworn acknowledgement of the correctness of plaintiff's claim. Following the same reasoning reached in Hatten, it would be highly inequitable for the defendant to have a...