Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC

• Decision Date: 04 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. S–13–0094.,S–13–0094.
• Parties: Terry MINER and Colleen Miner, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. JESSE & GRACE, LLC, a Wyoming Close Limited Liability Company, and Snowy Range Housing, LLC, f/k/a Zhao & Zhou, LLC, a Wyoming Close Limited Liability Company, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

317 P.3d 1124

Terry MINER and Colleen Miner, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs),

v.JESSE & GRACE, LLC, a Wyoming Close Limited Liability Company, and Snowy Range Housing, LLC, f/k/a Zhao & Zhou, LLC, a Wyoming Close Limited Liability Company, Appellees (Defendants).

No. S–13–0094.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 4, 2014.

Representing Appellants: Dennis C. Cook and Craig C. Cook of Cook and Associates, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Dennis C. Cook.

Representing Appellees: Kelly Neville Heck and Elisa M. Butler of Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Heck.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT ^*, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.

KITE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellants Terry and Colleen Miner purchased vacant property in Laramie, Wyoming. Shortly thereafter, they discovered that the back of a four-plex apartment building on an adjacent property encroached five feet onto their property, along the length of the apartment building. The Miners brought an action seeking a declaration that they own the encroaching portion of the apartment building and an order requiring that the building be partitioned and that Appellees Jesse & Grace, LLC and Snowy Range Housing, LLC (collectively the LLCs) be ejected from the encroaching portion of the building, or that the encroaching portion of the building be removed. The Miners also requested damages for trespass and an apportionment of rental income earned from the apartment building.

[¶ 2] The district court entered partial summary judgment against the Miners on their claim to an ownership interest in the apartment building. Having concluded that the Miners had no ownership interest in the apartment building, the district court denied the Miners' requests to eject the LLCs from the building, their request to partition the building, and their demand for a proportional share of the apartment building's rental income. A bench trial was held on the remaining issues, and following that trial, the court ruled that the LLCs were entitled to an implied easement on the Miners' property to accommodate the apartment building. The court then entered an order granting the LLCs an implied easement on the Miners' property and enjoining the Miners from interfering with the LLCs' use of that easement.

[¶ 3] We affirm the orders of the district court.

ISSUES

[¶ 4] The Miners present the following issues on appeal:

I. Whether the district court erred by denying [the Miners'] ejectment and trespass claims to assert ownership of the property underlying 20% of 388 Buchanan and the improvements thereon?

II. Whether the district court erred when it interpreted the clear and unambiguous language of [the Miners'] deed to their property and found as a predicate to its determination of an implied easement that the 20% of 388 Buchanan that is located on [the Miners'] property is not an improvement to that property?

III. Whether the district court erred by finding that [the LLCs] have an implied easement to occupy [the Miners'] property with their encroaching building and then by enjoining [the Miners'] access to that implied easement on their property?

IV. Whether partition of the co-owned building known as 388 Buchanan or whether an injunction to remove the encroaching part of that building from [the Miners'] property is the appropriate remedy in this case?

The LLCs phrase the issues on appeal as:

I. The District Court correctly decided that the physical structure of 388 Buchanan belongs to [the LLCs] and as such, [the Miners] are not entitled to recover under their claims for partition and ejectment.

II. The District Court correctly decided that [the LLCs] have an implied easement over the portion of [the Miners'] property underlying 388 Buchanan and the requisite setback area.

FACTS

[¶ 5] The present dispute centers on an apartment building located on Lot 1 of Block 29 in West Laramie, Wyoming, with a street address of 388 Buchanan. The apartment building was constructed by Susan Jaycox in 2005, who at that time owned all of Lot 1. At the same time Ms. Jaycox was constructing the apartment at 388 Buchanan, she was also constructing a second apartment building on Lot 1, at 382 Buchanan. The buildings were situated perpendicular to each other, with the unit at 388 Buchanan facing east and the unit at 382 Buchanan facing north.

[¶ 6] To finance the construction of the apartments at 388 and 382 Buchanan, Ms. Jaycox obtained separate loans for each building and secured each loan with a mortgage on a respective 70' x 130' area of Lot 1 on which each building was to be constructed. The recorded mortgage for 388 Buchanan encumbered a portion of Lot 1 described as: “The North 70 feet of the East 130 feet of Lot 1, Block 29, Town of West Laramie, now the City of Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming” (hereinafter referred to as the North Parcel). The recorded mortgage for 382 Buchanan encumbered a separate portion of Lot 1 described as: “The South 70 feet of the North 140 feet of the East 130 feet of Lot 1, Block 29, Town of West Laramie, now the City of Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming” (hereinafter referred to as the South Parcel). The mortgages for the North Parcel and the South Parcel were each recorded on May 20, 2005.

[¶ 7] Ms. Jaycox experienced financial difficulties and was unable to remain current on her mortgage payments on the North Parcel and the South Parcel. In 2007, the mortgagee for the North Parcel foreclosed upon the mortgage, and the North Parcel was sold to the mortgagee at a foreclosure sale in December 2007. Also in 2007, the mortgagee for the South Parcel foreclosed upon that mortgage, and the South Parcel was sold to that mortgagee at a foreclosure sale in January 2008.

[¶ 8] In August 2008, Le Zhou and Hong Zhao, husband and wife, purchased the North Parcel. In November 2008, they transferred the North Parcel to Snowy Range Housing, LLC (f/k/a Zhao & Zhou, LLC). In October 2008, Le Zhou and Hong Zhao purchased the South Parcel, and in November 2008, they transferred that property to Jesse & Grace, LLC.¹

[¶ 9] Ms. Jaycox continued to own the remainder of Lot 1 until July 2009, when she sold her remaining interest in Lot 1 to Dale Hansen. Shortly thereafter, in August 2009, Mr. Hansen sold part of his interest in Lot 1, as well as additional property he owned in Lot 2, to the Miners, who also already owned property in Lot 2. The Miners paid $15,000 for the property they purchased from Mr. Hansen, and the recorded warranty deed described the conveyed property as:

The North 140 feet of the West 44 feet of Lot 1, Block 29 and the South 140 feet of the East 17 feet of Lot 2, Block 29 And the North 90 feet of the East 84 feet of the Lot 2, Block 29, West Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming

Hereinafter, we will refer to the portion of Lot 1 that Mr. Hansen conveyed to the Miners as the West Parcel.

[¶ 10] Shortly after purchasing the property from Mr. Hansen, the Miners had their property surveyed to determine the property boundary so they could build a fence on the property's east boundary. Through that survey, the Miners discovered that the back of the apartment building at 388 Buchanan encroached onto their property, the West Parcel of Lot 1, by a little over five feet along the 64–foot length of the building. The record, for both the summary judgment and bench trial proceedings, contains the following map, which illustrates the property holdings after Mr. Hansen transferred the shaded portion to the Miners, the property boundaries, and the encroachment of the apartment building at 388 Buchanan onto the West Parcel.

IMAGE

[¶ 11] On December 14, 2011, the Miners filed a Complaint against the LLCs seeking a declaration that they own the encroaching portion of the apartment building and an order requiring that the building be partitioned and that the LLCs be ejected from the encroaching portion of the building, or that the encroaching portion of the building be removed. The Miners also requested damages for trespass and an apportionment of rental income earned from the apartment building. The LLCs counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the North Parcel and South Parcel have an implied easement over the portions of the West Parcel occupied by the apartment building and its parking lot and requesting an injunction to enjoin the Miners from interfering with the LLCs' implied easement. In the alternative, the LLCs sought relief in the form of deed reformation and quiet title.

[¶ 12] The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, and on December 21, 2012, the district court issued a decision ruling as follows:

The Court concludes as a matter of law that the portion of the apartment building that encroaches upon the West parcel is not an “improvement” or “appurtenance” attached to the West parcel. Consequently, the Court concludes that the July 2009 Warranty Deed from Susan Jaycox to Dale Hansen did not pass title to any portion of the apartment building at 388 Buchanan. Likewise, the August 2009 Warranty Deed for the West Parcel from Dale Hansen to Plaintiffs did not pass title to any portion of the apartment building at 388 Buchanan. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hold no title to any part of the apartment building, including the approximately 20% of the building that currently rests on the West parcel.

Lacking title to a portion of the apartment building, Plaintiffs' requests to eject Defendants from the apartment building and to partition the building must fail. Likewise, Plaintiffs' demand for a proportional share of the rental income for the apartment building cannot survive summary judgment.

* * *

Summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor as far as ownership of the apartment building. Plaintiffs own no portion of the apartment building, approximately 20% of which encroaches upon Plaintiffs' land known as the West parcel. Consequently, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs' requests to eject Defendants from the apartment building...