Court Summaries

• Jurisdiction: Wyoming,United States
• Pages: 32
• Citation: Vol. 46 No. 3 Pg. 32
• Publication year: 2023

Court SummariesVol. 46 No. 3 Pg. 32Wyoming Bar JournalJune, 2023

Court Summaries

Anna Reeves Olson

Anna Reeves Olson is Senior Counsel in the Casper office of Long, Reimer Win-egar LLP.

Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n

S-22-0152

2023 WY 18

February 22, 2023

Felix Felicis, LLC (Felix) and Riva Ridge Owners Association (RROA) engaged in litigation after RROA's site committee rejected Felix's plans to build a home on its tract in the Riva Ridge subdivision. RROA incurred attorney fees and other related costs during the litigation which it levied upon all tract owners in the subdivision, including Felix, via annual assessments. Felix refused to pay a portion of the assessments because it claimed the subdivision's restrictive covenants did not allow RROA to assess attorney fees and litigation costs against the tract owners. The parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute and the arbitrator found in favor of RROA and awarded it a total of $334,890. Felix filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that the arbitrator committed a manifest error of law by not considering its affirmative defenses. However, the arbitrator denied Felix's motion and stated, "I have considered [Felix]'s arguments regarding its affirmative defenses, . . . and I find no reason to arrive at a different result." To the extent any further clarification was necessary, the arbitrator also confirmed he had "carefully and fully . . . considered] all of [Felix]'s claims and defenses[,] . . . rejected them [based on the facts and law asserted by both parties and Felix's failure to satisfy its burden of proof regarding them], and deemed a full discussion [was] not needed . . . ."

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed and noted that Wyoming has a three-part test to determine whether an arbitrator committed a manifest mistake of law: (1) the error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived; (2) the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but ignores or pays no attention to it; and (3) the governing law that was ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable.

Here, the Court reasoned that Felix's argument did not satisfy its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator made a manifest mistake of law. The arbitrator did not "fail to address" or "outright ignore" Felix's affirmative defenses. In fact, the record showed that: (1) persuasive law from other jurisdictions held that the assessment of attorney fees and costs is a valid assessment; (2) a Wyoming district court case with similar facts ruled consistently with the persuasive law from other jurisdictions; and (3) Felix failed to cite any case law from any jurisdiction supporting its arguments.

Wendy Stone v. Daryl Stone

S-22-0138

2023 WY 21

March 13, 2023

Wendy (Wife) and Daryl (Husband) Stone were married in 1979 and divorced in 2003. During their marriage, Husband served in the military. The parties' stipulated decree of divorce granted Wife "an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of [Husband's] disposable retired pay" under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. However, the use of "months" rather than "reserve points" in the formula prevented Wife from being able to collect her share of Husband's military retired pay. In 2021, Wife filed a motion for relief under W.R.C.P. 60(a) and (b)(6), which the district court denied.

On appeal the Supreme Court reversed and noted that W.R.C.P. 60(a) states that a court "may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment[.]" The central purpose of Rule 60(a) is to effectuate the contemporaneous intent of the court and to ensure that the judgment reflects that intent.

The Court also stated that district courts must employ a two-part analysis when addressing a Rule 60(a) request for relief. First, a court considers whether the requested correction or clarification relates to a "clerical mistake," which includes the clarification of an "ambiguous property settlement provision provided in the original decree in order to effectuate the provision" Second, a court determines whether the proposed correction or clarification modifies the original judgment.

Here, the Court held that because the district court failed to clarify the "formulaic ambiguity," the decree gave Wife 0% of the marital portion of...