White v. Shane Edeburn Constr., LLC

• Decision Date: 07 September 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. S–11–0218,S–11–0219.,s. S–11–0218
• Citation: 285 P.3d 949,2012 WY 118
• Parties: Anne Uhr WHITE, Appellant (Defendant/Third–Party Plaintiff), v. SHANE EDEBURN CONSTRUCTION, LLC; Paris L. Edeburn; and Paul B. Tozer, Appellees (Plaintiffs), and Shane Edeburn, Appellee (Third–Party Defendant). Anne Uhr White, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Connie Webb, Shane Edeburn, Paris L. Edeburn, and Paul B. Tozer, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

285 P.3d 949

2012 WY 118

Anne Uhr WHITE, Appellant (Defendant/Third–Party Plaintiff),

v.SHANE EDEBURN CONSTRUCTION, LLC; Paris L. Edeburn; and Paul B. Tozer, Appellees (Plaintiffs),andShane Edeburn, Appellee (Third–Party Defendant).

Anne Uhr White, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Connie Webb, Shane Edeburn, Paris L. Edeburn, and Paul B. Tozer, Appellees (Defendants).

Nos. S–11–0218, S–11–0219.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Sept. 7, 2012.

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee, Connie Webb: Billie LM Addleman and Amanda M. Good, Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees, Shane Edeburn Construction, LLC, Paris L. Edeburn, Paul B. Tozer, and Shane Edeburn: Karen Budd–Falen and Brandon L. Jensen, Budd–Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

BURKE, Justice.

[¶ 1] The issues presented in these appeals involve three parcels of land formerly owned by Appellant, Anne Uhr White, in the Table Mountain Ranches (“TMR”) subdivision in Laramie County, Wyoming. In early 2011, Appellees Shane Edeburn Construction, LLC, Paris Edeburn, and Paul Tozer, initiated legal action to terminate Ms. White's lease on Lot 2 and Tract 12 of the TMR subdivision. Ms. White counterclaimed against these parties and added Shane Edeburn as a third-party defendant, asserting that they had violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in attempting to terminate the lease. Ms. White also filed a separate action against Appellees Shane Edeburn, Paris Edeburn, Paul Tozer, and real-estate agent, Connie Webb, claiming that they committed fraud and wrongfully conspired to deprive her of an opportunity to repurchase Lot 11 after she lost the property in foreclosure. In Docket No. S–11–0218, Ms. White challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment declaring the lease on Lot 2 and Tract 12 to be terminated and ordering Ms. White to vacate the property. She also challenges the district court's dismissal of her claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In Docket No. S–11–0219, Ms. White challenges the dismissal of her claims of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud relating to the sale of Lot 11.¹ We affirm the decisions of the district court in both appeals.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] In Docket No. S–11–0218, Ms. White presents two issues, which we rephrase as follows:

1. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Edeburns with respect to their claim that Ms. White breached the lease agreement?

2. Did the district court err in dismissing Ms. White's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

The Edeburns state the issues in a substantially similar manner as above, but present the following additional issue:

3. Is the appeal of the termination of the lease agreement moot because the Appellant no longer has an interest in the real estate?

[¶ 3] In Docket No. S–11–0219, Ms. White presents three issues, which can be set forth as a single issue:

Did the district court err in dismissing Ms. White's claims for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud?

FACTS

[¶ 4] Prior to the events at issue in this appeal, Ms. White sold Lot 2 and Tract 12 in the TMR subdivision to Westland Holdings, Inc., which subsequently leased the two parcels back to Ms. White. Ms. White resided in a detached camper trailer on Lot 2 and stored some belongings in a shed she had constructed on the property. The lease, which commenced on August 19, 2010 and terminated on February 19, 2012, contained the following provision:

5. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. Lessee shall, at its expense, keep and maintain the premises in a clean, [sightly], sanitary order and in good condition and repair and in compliance with all local, state and federal regulations. Lessee shall not cause or permit any waste or nuisance in or about the leased premises.

Westland Holdings subsequently sold the properties to the Edeburns on December 21, 2010. The properties were purchased subject to the lease between Westland Holdings and Ms. White.

[¶ 5] On January 31, 2011, the Edeburns notified Ms. White that she had violated Paragraph 5 of the lease by living in a camper trailer on Lot 2, in violation of county regulations, and by accumulating “trash, waste and debris,” including old automobiles, on the property. The Edeburns' notice allowed Ms. White ten days to come into compliance with the lease. Ms. White did not address the alleged lease violations and continued to reside on the property after the specified termination date.

[¶ 6] The Edeburns responded by initiating legal action. They sought a declaratory judgment that the lease was terminated and requested an injunction forcing Ms. White to forfeit possession of the property. Ms. White filed an “Answer, Counterclaim & Third Party Complaint,” adding Shane Edeburn to the suit as a third-party defendant. She asserted that Appellees had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by inventing lease violations to serve as a pretext for their desire to remove her from the property.

[¶ 7] The Edeburns filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that “Plaintiffs' attempt to exercise their rights under the Lease simply does not constitute a breach of good faith and fair dealing.... The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to force parties to ignore explicit provisions in the contract, which is what Ms. White desires.” The district court also granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment, finding that Ms. White had breached the lease by failing to “maintain the premises in a clean, [sightly], sanitary order” and by living in her camper in violation of local regulations. In Docket No. S–11–0218, Ms. White appeals both decisions.

[¶ 8] The issues in Docket No. S–11–0219 relate to the sale of Lot 11 in the TMR subdivision. Ms. White purchased Lot 11 in 1979 and financed the purchase with a bank loan secured by a mortgage. In 2009, Ms. White defaulted on the loan, and the bank foreclosed. The property was offered for sale at auction, and the bank purchased the property for $114,249.03. Ms. White did not redeem the property within the statutory redemption period. The bank subsequently hired Connie Webb, a real estate agent, to sell the property. According to Ms. White, she informed Ms. Webb that a third party wanted to make an offer to purchase Lot 11 when Ms. Webb was prepared to accept offers. Ms. White alleged that Ms. Webb represented to her that the property would not be marketed until it was cleaned and appraised. On February 23, 2010, with the help of Ms. Webb, the bank sold Lot 11 to the Edeburns for $22,000.00.

[¶ 9] Ms. White filed suit against Appellees, asserting claims of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, “loss of enjoyment and quality of life,” and “punitive damages.” She sought $3,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus additional punitive damages. The district court dismissed the complaint on Appellees' motion, finding that Ms. White had failed to allege facts sufficient to support her claims. In Docket No. S–11–0219, Ms. White appeals that decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 10] When reviewing motions to dismiss, we accept the facts stated in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. We will sustain a dismissal when it is certain from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot assert any fact which would entitle her to relief. Sinclair v. City of Gillette, 2012 WY 19, ¶ 8, 270 P.3d 644, 646 (Wyo.2012). With respect to the district court's decision to grant summary judgment, we apply the following standard of review:

We review a district court's summary judgment rulings de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. The facts are considered from the vantage point most favorable to the party who opposed the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Cook v. Shoshone First Bank, 2006 WY 13, ¶ 11, 126 P.3d 886, 889 (Wyo.2006); Garcia v. Lawson, 928 P.2d 1164, 1166 (Wyo.1996). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c).

Sutherland v. Meridian Granite Co., 2012 WY 53, ¶ 7, 273 P.3d 1092, 1095 (Wyo.2012).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 11] In Docket No. S–11–0218, Ms. White contends that summary judgment was improperly granted to the Edeburns on their claim that she breached the lease agreement. She claims the Edeburns impliedly consented to her existing use of the property because the Edeburns were aware of those conditions at the time they purchased the property. Ms. White contends that residing on the property in a camper trailer without an occupancy permit did not constitute a breach of her promise to maintain “compliance with all local, state and federal regulations” because local regulations relating to occupancy permits do not apply to camper trailers. She also asserts that whether she maintained the property in a “clean, sightly, sanitary order” raises a genuine issue of material fact. Further, Ms. White claims that the Edeburns are estopped from claiming breach because they accepted the first month's payment under the lease.

[¶ 12] The Edeburns respond by asserting that Ms. White's challenge to the lease termination is moot because the lease expired on February 19, 2012. They further claim, however, that even if Ms. White's challenge is not moot, summary judgment is proper because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Ms. White's failure to comply with the terms of the lease. She resided on the property in a camper trailer without an occupancy permit and allowed various junk and debris to accumulate on the property. The Edeburns contend that it is undisputed that Ms. White did not keep the property in a...