Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Ass'n
Decision Date | 07 December 2010 |
Docket Number | Nos. S-07-0260, S-09-0081.,s. S-07-0260, S-09-0081. |
Citation | 245 P.3d 269,2010 WY 158 |
Parties | Peter B. STEIGER and Sylvia Steiger, Appellants (Defendants), v. HAPPY VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Peter B. Steiger and Sylvia Steiger, pro se.
Representing Appellee: William D. Bagley of Frontier Law Center, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT *, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] Peter B. and Sylvia Steiger (the Steigers) owned a tract of land in a subdivision governed by restrictive covenants. The Happy Valley Homeowners Association (the Association) filed a complaint against them alleging that they were violating one of the covenants. The district court granted summary judgment for the Association and the Steigers appealed. This Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court after concluding that by failing to timely respond to a request foradmission, the Association was deemed to have admitted it lacked the authority to bring the legal action. Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Ass'n, 2007 WY 5, 149 P.3d 735 (Wyo.2007) ( Steiger I ).
[¶ 2] On remand, the district court entered an order allowing the Association to withdraw the admission and submit a response. The district court also entered an order awarding the Steigers costs for the appeal in Steiger I. The Steigers appealed both orders to this Court. We dismissed the appeal from the order allowing withdrawal of the admission as an improper interlocutory appeal. We stayed the appeal from the order awarding costs because a trial had been held in the interim and another appeal from the district court judgment seemed likely. As anticipated, the Steigers appealed the district court's judgment enforcing the covenant and dismissing their counterclaims. We affirm the district court order and judgment.
[¶ 3] The Steigers, appearing pro se as they have throughout these proceedings, present four issues which we rephrase as follows:
[¶ 4] Happy Valley is a subdivision located along Happy Jack Road west of Cheyenne. The subdivision is governed by restrictive covenants recorded in 1977. In 2000, the Steigers purchased a tract of land in Happy Valley. They placed a mobile home on the lot which, by their own admission, did not have a permanent foundation. In 2004, the Association filed a complaint alleging the Steigers were in violation of a covenant prohibiting homeowners in Happy Valley from occupying a modular or mobile home without a permanent foundation. The Steigers denied the Association's claims and filed a counterclaim seeking judgment in their favor finding that the Association had not duly authorized the legal action filed against them and the Association, by its failure to enforce other violations, had waived any right to enforce the covenants.
[¶ 5] In discovery, the Steigers served the Association with eighty-eight requests for admission, one of which asked the Association to admit that it was not legally constituted and the action it filed against them was invalid. The Association did not respond to the requests for admission within thirty days as required by W.R.C.P. 36. The Association filed its responses the following week and then filed a motion for summary judgment. Concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact, the district court found the Steigers had violated the covenant and granted the motion. In the Steigers' first appeal to this Court, we held the Association was deemed to have admitted that it did not have the authority to bring the action and reversed the summary judgment order. Steiger I, ¶ 4, 149 P.3d at 736.
[¶ 6] On remand to the district court, the Steigers sought payment of the costs they incurred in Steiger I. The district court entered an order awarding costs. The Association filed a motion for an order allowing it to withdraw its admissions and serve responses to the requests for admission. The Steigers objected and, after a hearing, the district court granted the motion. The Association then filed a response to the request for admission denying that it was not legally constituted and the legal action filed against the Steigers was invalid.
[¶ 7] The Steigers appealed both the order awarding costs and the order allowing the Association to withdraw the deemed admissions. Meanwhile, the district court scheduled the remaining matters for trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the district court issued oral findings and a written judgment in which it concluded the Steigers took title of their tract subject to the covenants, the covenants had not been abandoned, the Steigerswere in violation of the covenants because their mobile home was not on a permanent foundation, the Association was duly authorized to bring the action against the Steigers, and the Steigers failed to meet their burden of proving their claim that the covenants had been abandoned. The district court dismissed the Steigers' counterclaims with prejudice, restrained them from further violation of the covenants and enjoined them from occupying their home until they brought it into compliance with the covenants. The Steigers appealed the judgment to this Court.
[¶ 8] The Steigers contend the Association should not have been allowed to withdraw its admissions and file responses. They assert the Association did not request an order allowing withdrawal for over two years and then did so after this Court held in Steiger I that the admission was conclusively established. They contend the district court's order allowing the Association to withdraw the admissions violated W.R.C.P. 6(b), which allows a court to enlarge the time for filing motions only when the request is made before the time expires or, when a motion is made after the time has expired, upon a showing of excusable neglect. Because the Association did not request an order allowing it to withdraw the admissions before the time for responding expired and did not show excusable neglect for its late request, the Steigers maintain the district court did not have the authority to allow the withdrawal. The Steigers further assert this Court's ruling in Steiger I that the admissions were conclusively established prevented the district court from reopening the issue by allowing the Association to withdraw the admissions. They argue Hodges v. Lewis & Lewis, Inc., 2005 WY 134, 121 P.3d 138 (Wyo.2005), the case the Association relied upon in requesting the withdrawal, does not support allowing the withdrawal in this case because the party seeking the withdrawal in Hodges acted promptly and not, as in this case, over two years later and after an appeal.
[¶ 9] District courts have broad discretion to manage pretrial discovery matters. Id., ¶ 11, 121 P.3d at 142. Therefore, we review a district court's decision on a motion to withdraw or amend admissions under W.R.C.P. 36(b) for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Id., ¶ 11, 121 P.3d at 143. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did. Id.
[¶ 10] W.R.C.P. 36(a), governing requests for admission, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(Footnote added.)
[¶ 12] On remand to the district court, the Association filed its motion for an order allowing it to withdraw its admissions and serve responses. The motion was filed on March 27, 2007, two and a half years after the Steigers served the request for admissions. In its motion, the Association cited the provision in W.R.C.P. 36(b) allowing the court to permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions and asserted that its original responses to the eighty-eight requests for admission, which it served within a week after the thirty day time period, were late because of the volume of the Steigers' discovery requests. After considering the parties' respective arguments, the district court granted the motion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leners v. State
..."[m]ere allegations will not suffice to show bias or prejudice[.]" Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Ass n, 2010 WY 158, ¶ 33, 245 P.3d 269, 278-79 (Wyo. 2010) (emphasis added) Reichert v. State, 2006 WY 62, ¶ 37, 134 P.3d 268, 278 (Wyo. 2006), and TZ Land &Cattle Co. v. Condict, 795 P.2d ......
-
Taulo-Millar v. Hognason
...the evidence before it "; "[m]ere allegations will not suffice to show bias or prejudice[.]" Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Ass'n , 2010 WY 158, ¶ 35, 245 P.3d 269, 279 (Wyo. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Reichert v. State , 2006 WY 62, ¶ 37, 134 P.3d 268, 278 (Wyo. 2006), and TZ Land ......
-
Taulo-Millar v. Hognason
...... show bias or prejudice[.]" Steiger v. Happy Valley. Homeowners Ass'n , 2010 WY 158, ¶ 35, ......
-
Winney v. Hoback Ranches Prop. Owners Improvement & Serv. Dist.
...destroyed, or that the covenant has become valueless and onerous to the property owners.’ " Steiger v. Happy Valley Homeowners Ass'n , 2010 WY 158, ¶ 29, 245 P.3d 269, 277-78 (Wyo. 2010) (quoting Hammons v. Table Mountain Ranches Owners Ass'n, Inc. , 2003 WY 85, ¶ 14, 72 P.3d 1153, 1156 (Wy......