Wimer v. Cook
Decision Date | 03 March 2016 |
Docket Number | S–15–0155.,Nos. S–15–0154,s. S–15–0154 |
Citation | 369 P.3d 210 |
Parties | Rick and Terri WIMER, Curtis and Cynthia Li, and Harv Gloe, Appellants (Plaintiffs), and Harold Reimler, and Harold Reimler Trustee of the Reimler Family Trust, Appellants (Third Party Defendants), v. Jerry and Cheri COOK, and Cook's Construction, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Appellees (Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs). Jerry and Cheri Cook, and Cook's Construction, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Appellants (Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs), v. Rick and Terri Wimer, Curtis and Cynthia Li, and Harv Gloe, Appellees (Plaintiffs), and Harold Reimler, and Harold Reimler Trustee of the Reimler Family Trust, Appellees (Third Party Defendants). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants in Case No. S–15–0154: Cameron S. Walker of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees in Case No. S–15–0154: P. Craig Silva of Williams, Porter, Day, and Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶ 1] Rick and Terri Wimer, Curtis and Cynthia Li, and Harv Gloe(hereinafter collectively referred to as the Wimers) filed a complaint against their neighbors, Jerry and Cheri Cook and Cook's Construction, LLC(hereinafter collectively referred to as the Cooks), seeking an injunction prohibiting the Cooks from placing multiple single-family housing structures on a twenty-acre parcel of land owned by the Cooks because, in the Wimers' view, the conduct violated the neighborhood's covenants.The Cooks responded with a counterclaim and a third-party complaint against all their neighbors, including Harold Reimler, individually and as trustee of the Reimler Family Trust, seeking a declaration from the district court that the covenants had been abandoned.1After a bench trial, the district court determined the covenants had not been abandoned and the Cooks' plan to develop the twenty-acre parcel did not violate the covenants.Thereafter, the Wimers filed this appeal and the Cooks cross-appealed.We affirm in part and reverse in part.
[¶ 2] The Wimers raised several issues on appeal, which can be distilled to the following:
Whether the district court erred when it denied the Wimers injunctive relief after determining that the Cooks' plan did not violate the protective covenants.
The Cooks cross-appealed and raised the following issue:
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it drew the legal conclusion that the restrictive covenants have not been abandoned.
[¶ 3] On June 7, 1978, Van R. and Kathy Jane Irvine recorded a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" with the Natrona County Clerk for an area that will be referred to as the "Phillips Lane area" in Natrona County.All of the land involved in this case is subject to these covenants.The purpose of the covenants was "to insure the use and development of said property for exclusive residential and agricultural purposes only, to prevent the impairment of the attractiveness of said property for such purposes, and to maintain property values therein[.]"Although lengthy, it is important at the outset to quote the following portions of the covenants:
On September 28, 1978, the Irvines recorded an amendment to the covenants in order to allow one parcel of land to be divided into two parcels of 19.88 acres and subsequently conveyed.
[¶ 4] All of the parties to this litigation moved into the Phillips Lane area after the covenants had been recorded.Mr. Gloe moved into the area in 1981, followed by Mr. Reimler and the Lis in 1994, the Cooks in 2005, and Mr. and Mrs. Wimer in 2006.At some point in time, relations between the Cooks and the other neighbors soured, resulting in several accusations, disagreements and conflicts involving law enforcement and court intervention.The facts behind those incidents are not relevant and will not be discussed.Suffice it to say that the Cooks and their neighbors have a rancorous relationship.
[¶ 5] In 2011, the Cooks bought a twenty-acre parcel of land on Phillips Lane across the road from the approximately 150–acre parcel where they live and farm.That same year and through 2012, the Cooks developed the twenty-acre parcel by building a road, having the property surveyed into ten two-acre lots, and having the county assign addresses to each of the ten lots.The Cooks also had electrical power installed on the lots and septic systems installed on six of the ten lots.Additionally, each of the lots has a water tap that connects to the Poison Spider Water District main line.Importantly, per county zoning regulations, the Cooks are required to maintain ownership of the entire twenty acres—they cannot sell any of the individual two-acre lots.
[¶ 6] The Cooks placed a house on one lot for Mrs. Cook's mother to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Winney v. Jerup
...cannot override, annul, abrogate, or relieve land from building restrictions or covenants placed upon them." Wimer v. Cook , 2016 WY 29, ¶ 26, 369 P.3d 210, 220 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Bommer , 926 P.2d 959, 963 (Wyo. 1996) ). Even if Mr. Jerup thought he was complying with county ......
-
Tep Rocky Mountain LLC v. Record TJ Ranch Ltd.
...¶ 10, 341 P.3d at 423 (quoting Miner, ¶ 17, 317 P.3d at 1131 ). Shriners Hosps., ¶ 27, 373 P.3d at 403 (quoting Wimer v. Cook, 2016 WY 29, ¶ 9, 369 P.3d 210, 215 (Wyo. 2016) ) (some quotation marks omitted). Resolution of these issues requires interpretation of the SUA.We interpret unambigu......
-
Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...of covenants imposing restrictions or conditions on the use of land is a question of law we review de novo . Wimer v. Cook , 2016 WY 29, ¶ 21, 369 P.3d 210, 218 (Wyo. 2016).DISCUSSIONI. Wells Fargo's China Wall Tract Access Rights[¶26] To determine Wells Fargo's access rights to the China W......
-
Sweetwater Station, LLC v. Pedri
...the grantor or declarant.’ " Reichert v. Daugherty , 2018 WY 103, ¶ 15, 425 P.3d 990, 995 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Wimer v. Cook , 2016 WY 29, ¶ 22, 369 P.3d 210, 218 (Wyo. 2016) ). [¶14] "In the absence of an ambiguity, ‘we adhere to the covenant's plain and ordinary meaning without reference ......