Case Title: Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1988-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,1988 WY 155765 P.2d 937Case Number: 88-210Decided: 12/15/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 
CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN BANK OF CASPER, CASPER, WYOMING, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),

v.

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE 
INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

Appeal from the District 
Court, NatronaCounty, Dan Spangler, 
J.

Thomas M. Hogan, 
Casper, for appellant.

Barry G. 
Williams and Stuart R. Day of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., 
Casper, for appellee.

Before CARDINE, 
C.J., THOMAS, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ., and ROONEY, Retired 
J.

ROONEY, Retired 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
that portion of a summary judgment awarding appellee liquidated damages for 
breach of a lease between appellee's predecessor in interest, as lessor, and the 
American Bank of Casper, as lessee.1

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     On January 17, 1986, 
the American Bank of Casper was closed by the State Bank Examiner. 
Appellant was appointed receiver of the bank. The lease in question was for 
space used for the bank's operation in a building owned by appellee's 
predecessor in interest. Appellant abandoned the leased premises by relocating 
its liquidation operations to another bank in Casper. The trial court held, and we agree, 
that appellant abandoned the unexpired lease, thus triggering the lease 
provision for liquidated damages.

[¶4.]     The lease specifically 
provided for that which here occurred:

"In the event that the 
Bank is closed or taken over by the banking authority of the State of Wyoming or 
other bank supervisory authority, at the option of the receiver or other legal 
representative of the Bank, the maximum claim of the Lessor for damages or 
indemnity for injury resulting from the rejection or abandonment of the 
unexpired lease shall in no event be in an amount exceeding the rent reserved by 
the lease, without acceleration, for the year next succeeding the date of the 
surrender of the premises to the Lessor or the date of re-entry of the Lessor 
whichever first occurs, whether before or after the closing of the Bank, plus an 
amount equal to the unpaid rent accrued, without acceleration, up to such 
date."

The order of the 
trial court was in accordance with this provision:

"[The Court] hereby 
declares that the Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the 
formula contained in the Lease and is entitled to a receiver's certificate in 
that amount."

[¶5.]     There is no contention 
that the provision is a penalty or is for other than liquidated damages. Both 
parties quote the following from 2 Ralph Clark, Treatise on the Law and Practice 
of Receivers, § 446(d) (1959):

"If the lease contains a 
provision of liquidated damages in cases of insolvency and receivership it will 
be enforced."

Both parties 
cite Ray v. Electrical Products Consolidated, 390 P.2d 607 (Wyo. 1964), to reflect 
the willingness by this court to apply a liquidated damages clause in breach of 
lease actions.

[¶6.]     The lease does not 
contain any language which would make this provision ambiguous in its meaning or 
applicability. We have often said that if a contract is clear on its face, we 
must assume it reflects the intent of the parties. We must apply it as it is 
written and not rewrite it under the guise of interpretation. See Arnold v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 
Company, 707 P.2d 161 (Wyo. 1985) and McCartney 
v. Malm, 627 P.2d 1014 (Wyo. 1981) and cases cited 
therein.

[¶7.]     The trial court 
properly ordered enforcement of the lease as it was 
written.

[¶8.]     
AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1 The amended complaint 
contained a claim for relief in the form of liquidated damages for breach of the 
contract and a claim for relief for a preference to money placed in an account 
for back rent. The portion of the summary judgment relative to the latter claim 
for relief was not appealed.