Redland v. Redland
| Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | S–12–0012.,S–12–0011,Nos. S–12–0010,s. S–12–0010 |
| Citation | 2012 WY 148,288 P.3d 1173 |
| Parties | Rolly REDLAND, Kendrick Redland, and Teresa Shelton, individually and as Beneficiaries of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Robert REDLAND, Individually, Robert Redland, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust Dated August 10, 1989, Lisa Kimsey and Mike Kimsey, Appellees (Defendants), and Robert Redland, as Trustee of the Robert Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002, and as Successor Trustee of the Irene Redland Revocable Trust, dated October 30, 2002, Appellee (Plaintiff). Robert Redland, Appellant (Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff), 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), and Sharon Redland, Appellee (Third Party Defendant). Roalene McCarthy, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Robert Redland, Individually, Robert Redland, as Trustee of the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust Dated August 10, 1989, Lisa Kimsey and Mike Kimsey, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Representing Appellants/Appellees Rolly, Kendrick, Sharon and Debbie Redland and Teresa Shelton: S. Joseph Darrah of Darrah Law Office, P.C., Powell, WY.
Representing Appellees/Appellants Robert Redland and Roalene McCarthy: J. Kenneth Barbe II of Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C., Casper, WY; Ronald P. Jurovich, Thermopolis, WY; and Steve C.M. Aron of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, WY.
No appearance entered for Appellees Lisa and Mike Kimsey in S–12–0010 and S–12–0012.
No appearance entered for Appellees Roalene McCarthy and Teresa Shelton in S–12–011.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN *, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] These consolidated appeals stem from the Redland family's dispute over ranch property and operations. Appeals numbered S–12–0010 and S–12–0012 relate to real property that some of the Redland children claim their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust. The district court granted Robert Redland partial summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by the statute of frauds, and the Redland Children appeal that summary judgment order.1
[¶ 2] Following the entry of partial summary judgment, a bench trial was held on the remaining issues. Among the issues tried were claims for unjust enrichment by the two Redland sons, Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland, against Robert Redland for improvements that they had made to the disputed trust properties. The trial court ruled against Robert Redland on the unjust enrichment claims and awarded damages to both Rolly and Kendrick Redland. The trial court also ruled against Robert Redland on his counterclaim against Kendrick Redland, and his wife, Sharon, for a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland's Angus cattle operation. In Appeal No. S–12–0011, the father appeals the trial court's rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.
[¶ 3] We reverse the entry of summary judgment and affirm the trial court's rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.
[¶ 4] Appeals S–12–0010 and S–12–0012 are both appeals from the district court's order granting partial summary judgment. In S–12–0010, which was filed by three of the Redland children, Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland and Teresa Redland Shelton, the following issues are presented for this Court's review:
1. Whether the District Court erred when it determined the [S]tatute of Frauds barred Appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performanceafter Appellants had fully performed the agreement?
2. Whether the District Court erred when it determined that the applicable statute of limitations barred Appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance when there was no evidence that Appellants knew or should have known that the Agreement was breached before the limitations period expired?
[¶ 5] In Appeal S–12–0012, Roalene Redland McCarthy, in a separately filed appeal from the summary judgment ruling, states the issues differently but presents essentially the same questions for our review:
[¶ 6] In Appeal S–12–0011, Robert Redland appeals the district court's rulings following a bench trial and presents the following issues on appeal:
A. Issues Related to Unjust Enrichment
1. Did the trial court err when it found that Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland had proven the elements of unjust enrichment?
2. If Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland proved the elements of unjust enrichment, did the trial court err in the amount of the damages awarded?
B. Issues Related to Redland Angus
1. Did the Court err when it admitted Plaintiff's Exhibit 105 redacting Plaintiff's sticky note which said “part of bull sale[?]”
2. Did the Court err when it found that Robert Redland is not and was not a partner in Redland Angus?
[¶ 7] The claims regarding the disputed trust property include the Redland Children's claims that certain property should be conveyed to the family trust, and Rolly and Kendrick Redland's alternative claims for unjust enrichment for improvements made to that property. Those claims are independent from and unrelated to Robert Redland's claims to a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland's Angus cattle operation, Redland Angus. We will thus set forth the facts relating to the trust property claims and those relating to the Redland Angus operation separately. In this first part of the opinion, we will set forth the facts relating to the disputed trust property, and the legal proceedings that led to the present appeal. We will set forth the facts relating to Robert Redland's claims to a partnership interest in Redland Angus in the latter part of the opinion when we discuss that portion of Robert Redland's appeal.
A. Disputed Trust Property1. Property Names
[¶ 8] The Redland property that is in dispute and that will be discussed throughout this opinion is located in three areas of the Big Horn Basin. It includes the following:
Manderson Place
[¶ 9] The Manderson Place is located in Big Horn County. The parties variously refer to the deeded portion of this property as the Manderson Farm, the Manderson Place or the Home Place. Associated with this property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3–8179. Also associated with the property is Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lower Nowood Allotment No. 00144. For ease of reference, throughout this opinion, we will refer to the deeded property as the “Manderson Place,” and to State Lease No. 3–8179 by number or as the “State Farm at Manderson.”
[¶ 10] The Original Mountain Land is located in Washakie and Johnson Counties. Associated with the deeded property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3–8195, BLM Box Canyon Allotment No. 02008, and BLM Cedar Ridge Allotment No. 00145. For ease of reference, when we refer to State Lease No. 3–8195 separately, we will refer to it by number or as the “Mountain Land State Lease.”
[¶ 11] The Additional Mountain Land is located in the area of the Original Mountain Land and is deeded land that was owned by Eric Redland, Robert Redland's brother, until Eric's death in 1992.
[¶ 12] Woody Place is also located in Washakie County, south of the Mountain Land. Associated with this property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3–8248, BLM West Allotment No. 00147, and BLM East Allotment No. 00146. For ease of reference, we will refer to State Lease No. 3–8248 by number or as the “State Lease at Woody Place.”
2. History of the Property and Events Leading to Dispute
[¶ 13] Richard and Nellie Redland were the parents of Robert Redland and the grandparents of Robert and Irene Redland's five children: Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland, Roalene Redland McCarthy, Teresa Redland Shelton, and Lisa Redland Kimsey. Throughout their lifetimes, Richard and Nellie Redland accumulated ranching and farming property in the Big Horn Basin, including deeded land and federal and state leases, which they hoped would be held and operated by future Redland generations. All of the property that is in dispute in this action is property originally acquired by Richard and Nellie Redland.
[¶ 14] Robert and Irene Redland were married in 1951, and began living on Manderson Place in 1953. Sometime between 1959 and 1962, they purchased the Manderson Place from Richard and Nellie Redland. Robert and Irene raised their five children on the Manderson Place, and during those years they ran sheep on the Original Mountain Land and grew crops on BLM land near Manderson.
[¶ 15] In 1971, Robert and Irene Redland purchased Woody Place from Richard and Nellie Redland. The purchase included the deeded land and an assignment of the State Lease at Woody Place. The State Lease at Woody Place is important to the Woody Place operations because the leased land is adjacent to the deeded property and holds all of the operation's water.
[¶ 16]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Individual Healthcare Specialists, Inc. v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tenn., Inc.
...Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors Div. of Unidynamics Corp. , 319 S.C. 556, 462 S.E.2d 858, 860 (1995) ; Redland v. Redland , 288 P.3d 1173, 1186 (Wyo. 2012) ("Wyoming is a discovery jurisdiction, which means that a statute of limitation is triggered when a plaintiff knows or ......
-
Robert L. Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer
...that a statute of limitation is triggered when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the existence of a cause of action.” Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, ¶ 54, 288 P.3d 1173, 1186 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Carnahan v. Lewis, 2012 WY 45, ¶ 27, 273 P.3d 1065, 1073 (Wyo.2012) ). In other words......
-
Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez
...cases from California that under quasi-contract, the plaintiff can recover the reasonable value of his services); Redland v. Redland , 288 P.3d 1173, 1208 (Wyo.2012) ; Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C. , 287 P.3d 842, 847 (Colo.2012).7 Any new rule or wage determin......
-
Am. Action Network, Inc. v. Cater Am., LLC
...an incompatible claim where the elements of the claims are disputed, but it may not ultimately prevail on both. SeeRedland v. Redland, 288 P.3d 1173, 1209 (Wyo.2012) (holding that an alternative pleading of unjust enrichment and recovery of property is not barred by the election of remedies......