Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC

12 Citing cases

  1. Smithson v. Lindzey

    2021 WY 15 (Wyo. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    However, "even if a contract is unambiguous, we can examine evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed to arrive at the parties' intent." Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 14, 327 P.3d 732, 738 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Ecosystem Res., L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Res., L.L.C. , 2007 WY 87, ¶ 10, 158 P.3d 685, 688 (Wyo. 2007) ). The parties agree the language in the 1965 Warranty Deed is unambiguous, but they disagree on its meaning.

  2. Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. P'ship

    2022 WY 155 (Wyo. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    If the easement benefits a particular parcel of land, that parcel is known as the dominant tenement or dominant estate, and the easement is said to be appurtenant to it." Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC, 2014 WY 62, ¶ 13, 327 P.3d 732, 737-38 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Bruce & Ely, supra, § 1:1, at 1-6 (2014)).

  3. P & N Invs., LLC v. Frontier Mall Assocs., LP

    2017 WY 62 (Wyo. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    [¶8] We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo. Anadarko Land Corp. v. Family Tree Corp. , 2017 WY 24, ¶ 15, 389 P.3d 1218, 1223 (Wyo.2017) ; Williams v. Sundstrom , 2016 WY 122, ¶ 17, 385 P.3d 789, 793 (Wyo.2016). We use the same materials and follow the same standards as the district court. Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo.2014). Summary judgment can be granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  4. In re Protest of Barker

    398 P.3d 870 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to address whether attorney acting pro se could in Board of Tax Appeals proceedings

    " Kerry v. Quicehuatl, 213 Or.App. 589, 594, 162 P.3d 1033 (2007) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2404 [unabridged ed. 2002] ) (finding a person is "severally liable together with" the underinsured motorist if the person is independently liable to the insured for the same injuries caused by the underinsured motorist); see Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, L L C, 2014 WY 62, ¶ 38, 327 P.3d 732 (Wyo. 2014) (finding a trust conveying a parcel of land "[t]ogether with and subject to all easements of record and sight, and a non-exclusive 60.0 foot road and utility easement" conveyed all those items)."

  5. Four B Props., LLC v. Nature Conservancy

    2020 WY 24 (Wyo. 2020)   Cited 19 times

    [¶32] This Court will first review whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Conservancy and in finding the Conservation Easement unambiguous. When the interpretation of a contract is before the Court, the question of whether the contract is ambiguous is a question of law. Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014). "Easements are reviewed under the same principles that have been established for interpretation of contracts." Davison v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm’n , 2010 WY 121, ¶ 9, 238 P.3d 556, 560 (Wyo. 2010) (citations omitted).

  6. James v. Taco John's Int'l, Inc.

    2018 WY 96 (Wyo. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Id. (citing W.R.C.P. 56(c) ;Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 1083 (Wyo. 1999) ). "We review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards." Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014) (citations omitted). We examine "the record from the viewpoint most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving to him all favorable inferences to be drawn" therefrom.

  7. Prancing Antelope I, LLC v. Saratoga Inn Overlook Homeowners Ass'n

    2021 WY 3 (Wyo. 2021)   Cited 16 times

    Unless the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, "the easement language expresses and controls the drafting parties’ intent." Four B Props. , 2020 WY 24, ¶ 34, 458 P.3d at 841 (citing Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014) ). An agreement is ambiguous if it conveys a "double or obscure meaning."

  8. Douglas v. Jackson Hole Land Tr.

    2020 WY 69 (Wyo. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    Unless the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, "the easement language expresses and controls the drafting parties' intent." Four B Props. , 2020 WY 24, ¶ 34, 458 P.3d at 841 (citing Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014) ). An agreement is ambiguous if it conveys a "double or obscure meaning."

  9. Gayhart v. Corsi

    2020 WY 58 (Wyo. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    [¶15] "An easement is ‘an interest in land which entitles the easement holder to a limited use or enjoyment over another person’s property.’ " Gumpel, ¶ 68, 393 P.3d at 1297 (quoting Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 13, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014) ). "The principles of contract construction apply to construction of an easement."

  10. In re Lon V. Smith Found., Non-Profit Corp.

    2017 WY 121 (Wyo. 2017)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating if the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the Court does "not resort to an examination of policy" (citing In re Estate of Meyer , 2016 WY 6, ¶ 21, 367 P.3d 629, 636 (Wyo. 2016) )

    Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman , 2010 WY 36, ¶ 20, 226 P.3d 889, 905 (Wyo. 2010) ( Ultra I ). [¶16] We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. P & N Invs., LLC v. Frontier Mall Assocs., LP , 2017 WY 62, ¶ 8, 395 P.3d 1101, 1104 (Wyo. 2017) ; Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC , 2014 WY 62, ¶ 12, 327 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2014). "We do not accord deference to the district court's decisions on issues of law."