Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, No. 94-132

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the CourtBefore GOLDEN; MACY
PartiesRay SANDSTROM, Appellant (Defendant), v. Jodi SANDSTROM, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Decision Date10 November 1994
Docket NumberNo. 94-132

Page 968

884 P.2d 968
Ray SANDSTROM, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
Jodi SANDSTROM, Appellee (Plaintiff).
No. 94-132.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Nov. 10, 1994.

Page 969

Ray Sandstrom, Pro Se.

Michael D. Zwickl, Casper, Representing appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

Appellant Ray Sandstrom (the husband) appeals from an order in which the district court denied his motion to dismiss and his motion to vacate orders, granted the renewed motion made by Appellee Jodi Sandstrom (the wife) for entry of a summary judgment, denied the wife's motion to strike, and quieted title to a ranch in the wife.

We affirm.

ISSUE

The husband states the issue on appeal:

Point Involved

Where the [husband] filed a motion to dismiss predicated upon a settlement agreement signed by the parties, duly notarized, and which called for the immediate dismissal of all proceedings between the parties, was the court authorized to simply ignore its terms, declare the motion not to be "timely filed," and proceed as though the agreement never existed?

FACTS

This is the second time that this quiet title action has been before the Supreme Court. Originally, the case was appealed with a related case which involved the domestication of a Florida divorce decree. In that divorce decree, title to a Fremont County ranch was awarded to the wife.

The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of the wife in the domestication action. On appeal, we affirmed the district court's summary judgment order in the domestication action, and we dismissed the husband's appeal in the quiet title action because the district court had not entered a final order in that case. Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 880 P.2d 103 (Wyo.1994). The district court subsequently granted a summary judgment in favor of the wife which quieted title to the property in her. The husband appeals from that summary judgment.

The facts of this controversy were articulated at length in Sandstrom; consequently, we will recite only those facts which are pertinent to the issue presented in this case. 880 P.2d at 104-05. The wife filed a motion on June 14, 1993, for a summary judgment in the quiet title action. On July 26, 1993, after the husband had failed to respond to her motion within the time required by W.R.C.P. 6(c), the wife filed a motion for entry of a summary judgment. On August 6, 1993, the

Page 970

husband filed a "Memorandum Re: Summary Judgment Motion." A hearing on the wife's motions was scheduled for September 23, 1993.

On September 22, 1993, the husband filed a motion to dismiss the wife's complaint. His motion to dismiss was predicated upon a settlement agreement. The husband asserted that he and the wife had settled all their outstanding differences, including the controversy which involved the Fremont County property, by signing the settlement agreement. On that same day, the wife filed a traverse to the motion to dismiss. The wife argued that the settlement agreement resulted from improper ex parte contacts between the husband, who was a licensed attorney, and the wife, who was represented by counsel. An affidavit executed by the wife was attached to the traverse. The wife averred that she was hospitalized at the time she signed the agreement and that the husband used undue influence in convincing her to sign it.

At the hearing, the district court indicated that it would not rule on the wife's motion for a summary judgment in the quiet title action because it was going to consider the husband's motion to dismiss at a later date. See Sandstrom, 880 P.2d at 108. The district court ordered the husband to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • IN RE" H" CHILDREN
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 25, 2003
    ...referred to attorney rather than GAL. 13. See, for example, Loghry v. Loghry, 920 P.2d 664, 668 (Wyo.1996); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 884 P.2d 968, 971 (Wyo.1994); Matter of the Estate of Obra, 749 P.2d 272, 275 (Wyo.1988); and Larsen v. Roberts, 676 P.2d 1046, 1048 14. See, for example, In r......
  • James v. James, S-20-0272
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 20, 2021
    ...with procedural requirements. See , e.g. , Case v. Sink & Rise, Inc. , 2013 WY 19, 297 P.3d 762 (Wyo. 2013) and Sandstrom v. Sandstrom , 884 P.2d 968 (Wyo. 1994) (affirming summary judgments dismissing claims because of the appellants’ failures to respond to motion in accordance with the ru......
  • Moncrief v. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., Nos. 97-8087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 20, 1999
    ...added). In this case, the quantity of natural gas defendants were required to purchase is a matter of "mathematical calculation." Dunn, 884 P.2d at 968. The applicable price of that gas, however, is not necessarily so simply computed. If the price were set by the favored nations clause, whi......
  • Peterson v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, No. 97-182.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 5, 1999
    ...(quoting Thunder Hawk By and Through Jensen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 844 P.2d 1045, 1047 (Wyo.1992)); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 884 P.2d 968, 971 (Wyo. 1994). Statutory interpretation involves a question of law, and our review in such a case is plenary. Thomas v. Thomas, 913 P.2d 854, 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • IN RE" H" CHILDREN
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 25, 2003
    ...referred to attorney rather than GAL. 13. See, for example, Loghry v. Loghry, 920 P.2d 664, 668 (Wyo.1996); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 884 P.2d 968, 971 (Wyo.1994); Matter of the Estate of Obra, 749 P.2d 272, 275 (Wyo.1988); and Larsen v. Roberts, 676 P.2d 1046, 1048 14. See, for example, In r......
  • James v. James, S-20-0272
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 20, 2021
    ...with procedural requirements. See , e.g. , Case v. Sink & Rise, Inc. , 2013 WY 19, 297 P.3d 762 (Wyo. 2013) and Sandstrom v. Sandstrom , 884 P.2d 968 (Wyo. 1994) (affirming summary judgments dismissing claims because of the appellants’ failures to respond to motion in accordance with the ru......
  • Moncrief v. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., Nos. 97-8087
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 20, 1999
    ...added). In this case, the quantity of natural gas defendants were required to purchase is a matter of "mathematical calculation." Dunn, 884 P.2d at 968. The applicable price of that gas, however, is not necessarily so simply computed. If the price were set by the favored nations clause, whi......
  • Peterson v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, No. 97-182.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 5, 1999
    ...(quoting Thunder Hawk By and Through Jensen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 844 P.2d 1045, 1047 (Wyo.1992)); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 884 P.2d 968, 971 (Wyo. 1994). Statutory interpretation involves a question of law, and our review in such a case is plenary. Thomas v. Thomas, 913 P.2d 854, 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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