In The Matter Of Kite Ranch LLC v. Dunmire, S-09-0203.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Citation2010 WY 83,234 P.3d 351
Docket NumberNo. S-09-0203.,S-09-0203.
PartiesIn the Matter of KITE RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company.Powell Family of Yakima, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Douglas Brickman, individually, and Douglas Brickman and Anne Brickman, husband and wife, and as joint tenants, Appellants (Defendants),v.Galen Dunmire and Rebecca Dunmire, husband and wife, as joint tenants and James Hedstrom and Donna Hedstrom, husband and wife, as joint tenants, Appellees (Plaintiffs).
Decision Date24 June 2010

234 P.3d 351
2010 WY 83

In the Matter of KITE RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company.
Powell Family of Yakima, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Douglas Brickman, individually, and Douglas Brickman and Anne Brickman, husband and wife, and as joint tenants, Appellants (Defendants),
Galen Dunmire and Rebecca Dunmire, husband and wife, as joint tenants and James Hedstrom and Donna Hedstrom, husband and wife, as joint tenants, Appellees (Plaintiffs).

No. S-09-0203.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 24, 2010.

234 P.3d 352


234 P.3d 353
Representing Appellants: F. Scott Peasley of Peasley Law Office, Douglas, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Galen and Rebecca Dunmire: M. Gregory Weisz of Pence and MacMillan, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees James and Donna Hedstrom: William H. Vines of Jones, Jones, Vines & Hunkins, Wheatland, Wyoming.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] This is an appeal from a district court order determining the ownership and management rights of the members of a limited liability company (the LLC). A secondary question has been presented as to whether the district court adjudicated issues that were not raised by the pleadings. We affirm in part and reverse in part.


[¶ 2] 1. Can a party be a member of a limited liability company without evidence of a contribution to capital?

2. Under the Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act (the Act), do economic and noneconomic rights of company members vest in proportion to contributions to capital or pursuant to the articles of organization?

3. Does Wyoming law recognize a distinction between contributions to capital as initially listed in the articles of organization of a limited liability company, and as reflected on the company's books and records?

234 P.3d 354

4. Did the district court commit reversible error by adjudicating claims made against the unrepresented limited liability company?

5. Were issues related to dissolution of the limited liability company ripe for adjudication?


[¶ 3] This case previously was before this Court on the limited issue of the propriety of an injunction that had been granted by the district court and, for convenience's sake, we will simply re-state the facts as they were stated in the opinion issued in that matter:

In 2001, Dunmires, Hedstroms and Brickmans discussed purchasing a ranch in Albany County. The purchase price of the ranch was $1.1 million. They approached Powell about providing funds to help with the purchase. Powell agreed to provide $300,000 toward the purchase price of the ranch.
The parties secured a loan from First National Bank (FNB) for the bulk of the purchase price. The FNB loan was evidenced by a promissory note and mortgage on the ranch property. All members, except Powell, personally guaranteed the note, and Dunmires supplied additional real property to secure the FNB loan. FNB required the borrowers to form a business entity as a condition of the loan and to limit Powell's ownership in the new entity to a “maximum of 20%.” FNB also stated that the equity Powell provided could “not be accounted for through a note or mortgage.”
Hedstroms and Brickmans executed articles of organization for Kite Ranch on December 26, 2001. Dunmires, Brickmans, Hedstroms and Powell contributed initial capital of $1,000, with 20 percent coming from Powell and 26.66 percent from each of the other members. The articles were filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State's office. However, the members did not execute an operating agreement, even though proposed agreements were apparently circulated among them.[1]
Kite Ranch operated as a cattle ranch over the next few years, leasing its property for grazing purposes. All of the members except Powell met periodically to discuss business matters, although the meetings were not formal as no official notice was given prior to the meetings and minutes were not kept. During this time, approximately $220,000 of Powell's equity contribution was returned to it, leaving it with a capital account of approximately $80,000. Dunmires provided approximately $415,000 in funds to Kite Ranch during those years. The company's financial records indicate that Dunmires' contributions were carried as loans to the company. The company's accountant testified that Dunmires directed her to designate the funds as loans.

In 2006, Powell and Brickmans became concerned about the management of the company. Powell and Hedstroms executed contradictory leases on behalf of the company, leasing the ranch property to different individuals for the 2007 grazing season. In addition, the FNB note fell into default when it matured on November 1, 2006.

On January 12, 2007, Dunmires and Hedstroms filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Powell and Brickmans. They also named the limited liability company as an involuntary plaintiff. They sought a declaration of the parties' respective interests, rights and responsibilities with respect to the limited liability company. Powell and Brickmans responded with a petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction giving Powell management authority over the company and enjoining Dunmires and Hedstroms from exercising any management authority.

In re Kite Ranch, LLC, 2008 WY 39, ¶¶ 3-8, 181 P.3d 920, 922 (Wyo.2008) ( Kite Ranch I ).

[¶ 4] In Kite Ranch I, we affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction

234 P.3d 355
giving Powell the authority to manage the ranch during the pendency of these proceedings Id. at ¶ 32, at 929. We noted, however, that the district court's factual findings at that stage of the proceedings were “subject to being revisited at the trial ....” Id. at ¶ 25, at 927 n. 4.2 The matter then returned to the district court, where a motion for partial summary judgment was heard on February 18, 2009, and a bench trial on remaining issues was held on May 26-27, 2009. The district court issued decision letters on February 23, 2009, and June 9, 2009, and a final order on July 20, 2009. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be presented in the following discussion as they pertain to specific issues.

[¶ 5] Our standards for reviewing orders granting summary judgment are well established:

We review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. 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.
A motion for summary judgment places an initial burden on the movant to make a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that summary judgment should be granted as a matter of law. Once a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to present specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact does exist. We analyze challenges to a grant of summary judgment by reviewing the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion giving him all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient, however, to satisfy an opposing party's burden.

Gayhart v. Goody, 2004 WY 112, ¶ 11, 98 P.3d 164, 168 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Moore v. Lubnau, 855 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Wyo.1993)) (citations omitted). “Summary judgment may be the appropriate resolution in a declaratory judgment action.” Coffinberry v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of Hot Springs, 2008 WY 110, ¶ 3, 192 P.3d 978, 979 (Wyo.2008).

[¶ 6] We recently reiterated our standard for reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a district court after a bench trial:

The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail re-weighing disputed evidence. Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Further, with regard to the trial court's findings of fact,
we assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from it. We do not substitute ourselves for the trial court as a finder of facts; instead, we defer to those findings unless they are unsupported by the record or erroneous as a matter of law.
234 P.3d 356
The district court's conclusions of law are, however, subject to our de novo standard of review.

Vargas Ltd. P'ship v. Four “H” Ranches Architectural Control Comm., 2009 WY 26, ¶ 9, 202 P.3d 1045, 1049-50 (Wyo.2009) (internal citations omitted). Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue v. Hanover Compression, LP, 2008 WY 138, ¶ 8, 196 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo.2008).
Can a party be a member of a limited liability company without evidence of a contribution to capital?

[¶ 7] Powell and Brickmans contend that, despite the statement in the Articles of Organization that cash contributions were being made “at this time”-Powell, $200.00; Brickmans, $266.67; Hedstroms, $266.67; and Dunmires, $266.67-there was no evidence at trial that anyone but Powell actually made a capital contribution. It follows, Powell asserts, that nobody but Powell ever became a member of the LLC.

[¶ 8] This issue was resolved by the district court via summary judgment. On December 12, 2008, Dunmires filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the district court to determine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Montierth v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 13, 2018
    ...See , e.g. , Barlow Ranch, Ltd. P'ship v. Greencore Pipeline Co. LLC , 2013 WY 34, ¶ 102, 301 P.3d 75, 105 (Wyo. 2013) ; In re Kite Ranch, LLC , 2010 WY 83, ¶ 35, 234 P.3d 351, 364 (Wyo. 2010).[¶ 34] The second statute relied upon by Mr. Montierth, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39–13–109(e)(iv), states......
  • Loeffel v. Dash
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • July 27, 2020
    ...the bounds of reason under the circumstances." Ransom v. Ransom , 2017 WY 132, ¶ 10, 404 P.3d 1187, 1190 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting In re Kite Ranch, LLC , 2010 WY 83, ¶ 33, 234 P.3d 351, 363 (Wyo. 2010) ); see also Beavis ex rel. Beavis v. Campbell Cty. Mem'l Hosp. , 2001 WY 32, ¶ 17, 20 P.3d 50......
  • Sena v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 6, 2019
    ...language in one part of the statute and different language in another, the court assumes different meanings were intended.’ " In re Kite Ranch, LLC , 2010 WY 83, ¶ 20, 234 P.3d 351, 359 (Wyo. 2010) (quoting 2A Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46:......
  • 418 Meadow St. Assocs., LLC v. Clean Air Partners, LLC., No. 18699.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 22, 2012
    ...corporation statute to facilitate managerial flexibility.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kite Ranch, LLC, 234 P.3d 351, 360 (Wyo.2010). We perceive statements by this court to be particularly significant with respect to foundational principles of limited liabil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Operations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Limited Liability Company - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2022
    ...been subject to arbitra- tion. Court rejected the argument because she was not a party to the operating agreement. In re Kite Ranch , LLC, 234 P.3d 351 (Wyo. 2010). Individuals were members of a Wyoming LLC that operated a cattle ranch. The court concluded that an individual could become a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT