Redland v. Redland, S–14–0159.
Decision Date | 26 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. S–14–0159.,S–14–0159. |
Citation | 346 P.3d 857,2015 WY 31 |
Parties | Robert REDLAND, Individually, Robert Redland, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, Lisa Kimsey and Mike Kimsey, Appellants (Defendants), v. Rolly REDLAND, Kendrick Redland, Roalene McCarthy and Teresa Shelton, Individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Scott W. Meier, Lucas Buckley and J. Zachary Courson of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Meier.
Representing Appellees Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland and Teresa Shelton: S. Joseph Darrah of Darrah Law Office, P.C., Powell, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee Roalene McCarthy: C.M. Aron of Aron & Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.
[¶ 1] This is the second appeal stemming from the Redland family's dispute over ranch property that some of the Redland children claim their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust.1 In the first appeal, Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, 288 P.3d 1173 (Wyo.2012) ( Redland I ), this Court held that questions of fact precluded the district court's entry of summary judgment on the issues of whether the Redland Children's claims against Robert Redland were barred by the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations, and we remanded for a trial on those issues.
[¶ 2] Following a bench trial on remand, the district court found that the claims were not barred, and it ordered that all of the disputed property, with the exception of the property on which Robert Redland resides (“the Manderson Place”), be immediately transferred to the family trust. With respect to the Manderson Place, the district court ordered that the property be transferred to the trust upon Robert Redland's death. We affirm the district court's order, with the exception of its disposition of the Manderson Place. With respect to the latter property, we remand for entry of an order directing that the Manderson Place be immediately transferred to the family trust subject to Robert Redland's life estate in the property.
[¶ 3] Robert Redland states the issues on appeal as follows:
[¶ 4] The disputed Redland property is located in three areas of the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming. Because the property at issue in the present appeal is the same property we discussed in Redland I, we will use the Redland I nomenclature to reference the property in this appeal:
Redland I, ¶¶ 9–12, 288 P.3d at 1178–79.2
[¶ 5] As in Redland I, we believe it is helpful to an understanding of the parties' dispute to begin with a history of the parties, their property acquisitions, and their ranching operations. Again, these facts remain unchanged since our decision in Redland I:
Redland I, ¶¶ 13–21, 288 P.3d at 1179–1180.
[¶ 6] The creation of the Redland Family Trust is at the root of the Redland family's property dispute. The Redland Children contend they made capital and other contributions to the Trust with the understanding that certain properties historically operated on and held by members of the Redland family, including deeded properties, state leases, and federal leases, would be held by the Trust. In February 2007, however, the Redland Children learned, from a notice in the Basin Republican Rustler, that property they understood to belong to the Redland Family Trust had been transferred from Robert and Irene Redland (through their individual revocable trusts) to Lisa Kimsey, the Redland...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shriners Hosps. for Children v. First N. Bank of Wyo.
.... Wimer, ¶ 9, 369 P.3d 210. Additionally, this Court may affirm a district court ruling on any basis appearing in the record. Redland v. Redland, 2015 WY 31, ¶ 17, 346 P.3d 857, 866 (Wyo.2015).[¶ 31] Article 1, § 30 of the Wyoming Constitution states: “Perpetuities and monopolies are contra......
-
Maverick Benefit Advisors, LLC v. Bostrom
...articulated in the district court's ruling are incorrect. JLK v. MAB , 2016 WY 73, ¶ 15, 375 P.3d 1108, 1112 (Wyo. 2016) ; Redland v. Redland , 2015 WY 31, ¶ 17, 346 P.3d 857, 866 (Wyo. 2015) ; Armstrong v. Hrabal , 2004 WY 39, ¶ 56, 87 P.3d 1226, 1244 (Wyo. 2004) ; Walker v. Karpan , 726 P......
-
Redland v. Redland (In re Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989)
...the Redland family’s trust in Redland v. Redland , 2012 WY 148, 288 P.3d 1173 (Wyo. 2012) ( Redland I ) and Redland v. Redland , 2015 WY 31, 346 P.3d 857 (Wyo. 2015) ( Redland II ). We restate it here to the extent necessary to put the current appellate issues into context.[¶4] Robert Redla......
-
Goforth v. Fifield
...raise implied easement as an affirmative defense, make a counterclaim, or even explicitly mention such a theory at trial.8 See Redland v. Redland, 2015 WY 31, ¶ 56, 346 P.3d 857, 875 (Wyo.2015) (“We have repeatedly held that we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal[.]......