Waldrop v. Weaver, 84-205
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Citation | 702 P.2d 1291 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-205,84-205 |
| Parties | Charles WALDROP, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Larry WEAVER and Patricia Weaver, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1985 |
Page 1291
v.
Larry WEAVER and Patricia Weaver, Appellees (Defendants).
Robert T. Moxley, Wheatland, for appellant.
H.W. Rasmussen and Clay B. Jenkins of Badley & Rasmussen, P.C., Sheridan, for appellee Patricia Weaver.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
CARDINE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a dismissal with prejudice of appellant's action for eviction as a sanction for a failure to attend a scheduled deposition. We reverse.
Appellant raises the following issues:
"I. The Discovery Sought By The Appellee-Defendants Was Unnecessary As There Was No Material Issue of Fact.
"II. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Dismissing The Appellant's Lawsuit With Prejudice."
Appellees raise the additional argument that appellant lacks standing because he is
Page 1292
not the real party in interest. Since a trustee in bankruptcy has been appointed for appellant and has made an appearance in the appeal, the question of standing is moot.Appellant and appellees contracted for the sale and purchase of a mobile home court in Gillette. The mobile home park was located on land leased by appellant. On March 16, 1982, appellant Waldrop sold the mobile home park to appellees who executed a promissory note providing for a down payment and monthly installments. On August 2, 1982, appellees Weavers commenced suit against Waldrop seeking an offset against the purchase price because the premises were not in compliance with electrical and sanitation codes as required by their agreement. Waldrop counterclaimed asserting that an oral agreement of the parties placed responsibility for repair upon the Weavers. The Weavers moved for summary judgment which was granted; however, Waldrop was allowed to file an amended answer. Before the counterclaim could be judicially resolved, the parties moved for dismissal stipulating that the above matter "has been fully settled for valuable consideration and that the same should be dismissed with prejudice."
The parties had previously placed the documents pertaining to the trailer court sale into escrow with a local bank; after settlement, they wrote the bank explaining the newly-agreed-upon terms and stated that:
"The below parties certify that the foregoing signifies their agreement for settlement of all disputes between them, including any unresolved legal action, whether counterclaims or direct claims, and specifically any action pending under Cause No. 12039, Campbell County, State of Wyoming."
The settlement was effected May 5, 1983, and dismissal with prejudice entered on June 14, 1983.
On February 2, 1984, Waldrop brought a complaint for eviction alleging that the Weavers had, since the May 5, 1983 settlement, paid only two of the required monthly payments. The Weavers counterclaimed contending that they had discovered defects in the premises which were not in compliance with the terms of the original lease agreement or their settlement with Waldrop. Appellant's deposition was scheduled for April 25, 1984. He had moved to limit discovery and did not appear for the deposition. A hearing was held on a motion for default judgment and motion for summary judgment on May 3, 1984. The court entered an order stating:
"[T]he court finds that the matters asserted in the counterclaim of the defendants are res judicata. They are matters that should have been taken care of at the time of settling of No. 12039. Nothing further was done until a counterclaim to this suit. Their rights weren't asserted until this counterclaim. I think the letter is broad, signifying all claims are being settled. This was a lawsuit begun on August 2, 1982. It was pending for some ten months. All types of pleadings and pretrials, et cetera, affidavits, opportunity for discovery. I don't think these parties can keep litigating and relitigating and relitigating.
"So I'm going to grant the summary judgment against the counterclaim.
"Now, Mr. Waldrop has filed his complaint for eviction and he has failed to appear in the forum that he has chosen, for whatever reasons. Specifically asked for postponement of that deposition and that was specifically denied. He did not appear.
"The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re, s. 85-203
...611 P.2d 831 (1980). A ruling which shocks the conscience of this court is held to be an abuse of discretion. Waldrop v. Weaver, Wyo., 702 P.2d 1291 (1985). See also Walker v. Karpan, Wyo., 726 P.2d 82, 90 Page 103 The master determined that practicably irrigable acreage should be based on ......
-
In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River, No. 85-203 to 85-205
...611 P.2d 831 (1980). A ruling which shocks the conscience of this court is held to be an abuse of discretion. Waldrop v. Weaver, Wyo., 702 P.2d 1291 (1985). See also Walker v. Karpan, Wyo., 726 P.2d 82, 90 85 P.3d 103 The master determined that practicably irrigable acreage should be based ......
-
State v. Atwood, CR-87-0135-AP
...120 Ariz. 386, 388, 586 P.2d 635, 637 (1978), citing State v. Douglas, 87 Ariz. 182, 349 P.2d 622 (1960); see also Waldrop v. Weaver, 702 P.2d 1291, 1293 (Wyo.1985) ("An abuse of discretion is that which shocks the conscience of the court and appears so unfair and inequitable that a reasona......
-
Goss v. Goss, 88-267
...so unfair and inequitable that a reasonable person could not abide it. Paul v. Paul, Wyo., 616 P.2d 707 (1980)." Waldrop v. Weaver, 702 P.2d 1291, 1293 Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this case for a new trial in which the procedural status of the parties is well defined, and in whi......