Case Title: River Properties Partnership v. Willoughby

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
River Properties Partnership v. Willoughby1997 WY 110944 P.2d 1145Case Number: 96-297Decided: 09/12/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

RIVER PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, a 
partnership,  

Appellant (Defendant), 

 

v. 

 

PHILLIP T. WILLOUGHBY and JULIE ANN 
WILLOUGHBY,  

Appellees (Plaintiffs), 

 

and 

THE CITY OF CASPER, a municipal corporation under the 
laws of the State of Wyoming,  

Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County 

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 

Barry G. Williams of 
Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper; and James R. McCarty, Casper, 
for Appellant.

 Phillip T. Willoughby, Pro Se, Casper, for 
Appellees Phillip Willoughby and Julie Willoughby. 

W. Jackson Stewart, City 
Attorney, Casper; and William C. Luben, Deputy City Attorney, Casper, 
for Appellee City of Casper.

 

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

MACY, Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant River 
Properties Partnership appeals from the summary judgment which was granted in 
favor of Appellees Phillip Willoughby, Julie Willoughby, and the City of 
Casper.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      River Properties 
presents the following issues for our review:1 

 

I. Whether or not the lower court erred in not 
finding that the metes and bounds description of the appellee[s] Willoughby[s'] 
property prevailed over any discrep[a]ncy with the Tr[ai]ls West Subdivision 
Plat and Dedication?

II. Whether or not the district court erred in 
failing to find that the appellant's title to the subject property was free and 
clear of the plat and dedication filed on the Trails West Subdivision, Natrona 
County, Wyoming?

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      This case 
involves a dispute over the ownership of certain property located within the 
Trails West Estates subdivision in Casper. On September 4, 1994, Phillip 
Willoughby2 filed a declaratory judgment action 
against River Properties and the City of Casper. He asked the district court to 
quiet the title to certain property situated within Trails West Estates. River 
Properties filed an answer and a counterclaim against Willoughby and 
cross-claimed against the City of Casper. River Properties sought a declaration 
as to the ownership of the land and a determination of the legal effect that the 
plat and dedication of Trails West Estates had. The City of Casper filed an 
answer in which it generally aligned with Willoughby.

 

[¶5]      The following 
recorded transactions are relevant to this dispute:

 

1. January 
19, 1979: Deed from Herz-Spencer Partnership to Radix, Inc., conveying the 
lands which are at issue in this case.

 

2. March 22, 
1979: Deed from Radix to Thomas McDill, Jr., conveying Lots 13 and 14, Block 
17 of the proposed Trails West Estates. In addition to specifying in the 
description of the property that the land was a part of the proposed Trails West 
Estates, the deed also contained a metes-and-bounds description of the land 
which was being conveyed.

 

3. July 26, 
1979: Mortgage from Radix to Wyoming National Bank of Casper on the 
remaining portion of its property in the proposed Trails West Estates. The 
mortgage described the property by referring to the proposed Trails West Estates 
and by giving metes and bounds, and it specifically exempted the McDill property 
which was also described as being a part of the proposed Trails West Estates and 
by metes and bounds.

 

4. October 1, 
1979: Subdivision agreement and plat and accompanying dedication of roads, 
easements, and parks for Trails West Estates from Radix.

 

5. November 
6, 1979: Mortgage from McDill to First National Bank of Casper on Lot 13, 
Block 17 of Trails West Estates (later assigned to United States Small Business 
Administration).

 

6. November 
12, 1980: Mortgage from McDill to Provident Federal Savings and Loan 
Association on Lot 14, Block 17 of Trails West Estates.

 

7. January 
19, 1982: Trails West Estates was annexed to the City of 
Casper.

 

8. May 20, 
1982: Subdivision agreement and plat and accompanying dedication of roads 
and easements for Cottonwood Addition, a partial replat of Trails West Estates, 
from New Vistas, Inc. (the successor in interest to 
Radix).

 

9. June 2, 
1982: Sheriff's deed to Wyoming National Bank, conveying property upon 
foreclosure on the Radix mortgage.

 

10. July 27, 
1984: Sheriff's deed to Provident Federal, conveying Lot 14, Block 17 of 
Trails West Estates upon foreclosure on the McDill 
mortgage.

 

11. January 
23, 1985: Sheriff's deed to Small Business Administration, conveying Lot 13, 
Block 17 of Trails West Estates upon foreclosure on the McDill 
mortgage.

 

12. January 
27, 1985: Addendum to the Cottonwood Addition plat acknowledged and given by 
Wyoming National Bank, as Trustee, in which the bank agreed to and ratified the 
Cottonwood Addition plat.

 

13. June 4, 
1985: Deed from Small Business Administration to Wyoming District Council of 
the Assemblies of God, Inc., conveying Lot 13, Block 17 of Trails West Estates. 

14. June 7, 
1985: Deed from Provident Federal to Assemblies of God, conveying Lot 14, 
Block 17 of Trails West Estates.

 

15. June 16, 
1989: Memorandum of purchase from Assemblies of God to Phillip Willoughby 
for Lots 13 and 14, Block 17 of Trails West Estates.

 

16. May 18, 
1990: Deed from Wyoming National Bank to Kirt Koski, conveying property 
obtained upon foreclosure on the Radix mortgage.

 

17. May 18, 
1990: Deed from Kirt Koski to River Properties, conveying property acquired 
from Wyoming National Bank.

 

18. January 
21, 1992: Tax deed to Willoughby, conveying Lot 15, Block 17 of Trails West 
Estates.

 

[¶6]      Each party filed 
a motion for a summary judgment. This case involved: (1) the validity of the 
dedication of certain property to public use by the subdivision agreement, plat, 
and dedication; and (2) a dispute over the boundaries of the Willoughbys' 
property. After holding a hearing, the district court granted a summary judgment 
in favor of the Willoughbys and the City of Casper and denied River Properties's 
motion. The district court concluded that the Willoughbys' interest in Lots 13 
and 14, Block 17 of Trails West Estates had legal superiority over River 
Properties's claim and that, by virtue of the tax deed, the Willoughbys' 
interest in Lot 15 was superior to any claim asserted by River Properties. The 
district court also determined that the subdivision agreements, plats, and 
dedications for Trails West Estates and Cottonwood Addition were valid, 
including the dedication and platting of all roadways, easements, and park 
lands. River Properties appealed to this Court.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶7]      A summary 
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and 
when the prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter of law. Kirkwood v. CUNA Mutual Insurance 
Society, 937 P.2d 206, 208 (Wyo. 1997); see also W.R.C.P. 56(c). We examine 
the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party who opposed the 
motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may 
fairly be drawn from the record. Kirkwood, 937 P.2d  at 208. We evaluate a 
summary judgment's propriety by employing the same standards and by using the 
same materials as were employed and used by the lower court. Id. We do not accord any deference to 
the district court's decisions on issues of law. Id.

 

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      River Properties 
maintains that, since Wyoming National Bank did not sign or ratify the 
subdivision and dedication documents, the bank took title to the property free 
and clear of the subdivision agreements, plats, and dedications after it 
foreclosed on the Radix mortgage. River Properties argues, therefore, that the 
district court erred when it concluded that River Properties was bound by the 
subdivision agreements, plats, and dedications. The Willoughbys and the City of 
Casper contend that, regardless of any technical error which may have occurred 
in the execution of the subdivision and dedication documents, River Properties 
cannot collaterally attack the dedication's validity at this 
time.

 

[¶9]      "`[A] dedication 
is generally defined as the devotion of property to a public use by an 
unequivocal act of the owner, manifesting an intention that it shall be accepted 
and used presently or in the future. . . .' 11 McQuillin, Mun Corp § 33.02, p. 
636 (3rd ed.)." City of Evanston v. 
Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1985). When lots are being subdivided or 
streets are being defined, land may be dedicated for public use either through 
the statutory procedures for dedication or under common law. Town of Moorcroft v. Lang, 779 P.2d 1180, 1183 (Wyo. 1989); see also WYO. 
STAT. §§ 34-12-102, -103, -112 (1997).

 

[¶10]   The following general rule applies 
if the property is mortgaged when it is dedicated:

 

[A] mortgagor may divest himself of his own interests 
in the mortgaged property by a dedication thereof. However, consistent with the 
fundamental rule that one may not convey or alienate a greater interest in land 
than he owns, a mortgagor cannot, without the consent of the mortgagee, make a 
dedication of the mortgaged premises so as to adversely affect the interest of 
the mortgagee. Although a mortgagor may be technically the owner, if he attempts 
to dedicate the mortgaged property or any part thereof without the assent of the 
mortgagee, such dedication creates no more than an equity in the public to have 
the land opened, subject to the mortgage, and foreclosure will cut off all 
rights of the public in the mortgaged land.

 

23 AM.JUR.2D Dedication § 18 at 16-17 (1983). See also In re Bellamah Community 
Development, 107 B.R. 337, 340 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1989); Descheemaeker v. Anderson, 131 Mont. 
322, 310 P.2d 587, 590-91 (1957). Exceptions to the general rule, however, do 
exist:

 

The mortgagee may be bound by the dedication, . . . 
by his express consent thereto, by acts equivalent to a positive donation, or by 
way of estoppel, and his assent may be implied from his failure to object, and 
his subsequent acts made in reference thereto.

 

26 C.J.S. Dedication § 7 at 407 (1956). See also Weills v. City of Vero Beach, 
96 Fla. 818, 119 So. 330, 332 (1928); Manning v. House, 211 Ala. 570, 100 So. 772, 775 (1924).

 

[¶11]   In this case, Radix mortgaged the 
property to Wyoming National Bank in July 1979. Radix recorded the subdivision 
agreement, plat, and dedication for Trails West Estates in October 1979, and New 
Vistas, Radix's successor in interest, recorded the subdivision agreement, plat, 
and dedication for Cottonwood Addition, which was a partial replat of Trails 
West Estates, in May 1982. Wyoming National Bank did not sign the subdivision 
and dedication documents. According to the general rule of law outlined above, 
it appears that the bank should have signed the subdivision and dedication 
documents or otherwise agreed to the dedication at the time of recordation in 
order for the dedication to be binding upon it.

 

[¶12]   The mortgage between the bank and 
Radix did, however, describe the property by referring to the proposed Trails 
West Estates. The record does not show that the bank ever objected to Trails 
West Estates being established or to the property within Trails West Estates 
being dedicated to public use. In fact, on January 27, 1985, the bank, as 
Trustee, executed an addendum to the Cottonwood Addition plat in which it stated 
that the bank had been omitted from the plat in error and that it agreed to and 
did ratify the plat. When it executed the addendum, the bank held title to the 
property by virtue of its foreclosure on the Radix mortgage. Under these facts, 
we conclude that the bank assented to and ratified the prior dedication of the 
property to the public.

 

[¶13]   The public relied on the property 
dedication when the City of Casper annexed Trails West Estates. Additionally the 
public used the dedicated parks and streets within Trails West Estates. River 
Properties may not, therefore, collaterally attack the validity of the 
dedications or the ownership of the property which was dedicated to public 
use.

 

[¶14]   We turn now to the issue concerning 
the discrepancy between the metes-and-bounds description and the lot description 
of the Willoughbys' property. River Properties contends that the Willoughbys' 
title was established by the metes-and-bounds description which was contrary to 
the platted legal description of Lots 13 and 14, Block 17 of Trails West Estates 
and that the Willoughbys obtained title to only the property which was described 
by metes and bounds.3 River Properties argues that, since 
it owns the property which lies adjacent to the disputed area, it has title to 
the small parcels of land which are located within the disputed boundary area. 
The district court concluded that the Willoughbys' interest in the property was 
superior to River Properties's claim because, under WYO. STAT. § 34-1-121(a) 
(1997), the precedence and superiority of the original conveyance between Radix 
and McDill was established as a matter of law when the deed was 
recorded.

 

Section 34-1-121(a) states in relevant 
part:

(a) Each and every deed, mortgage, instrument or 
conveyance touching any interest in lands, made and recorded, according to the 
provisions of this chapter, shall be notice to and take precedence [over] any 
subsequent purchaser or purchasers from the time of the delivery of any 
instrument at the office of the register of deeds (county clerk), for 
record.

 

[¶15]   The original deed from Radix to 
McDill for Lots 13 and 14, Block 17 described the property as being a part of 
the proposed Trails West Estates and in metes and bounds. The mortgage executed 
between Wyoming National Bank and Radix specifically exempted the McDill 
property, describing the land by referring to Trails West Estates and by using 
metes and bounds. The McDill deed was recorded before Wyoming National Bank's 
mortgage was recorded. The district court, therefore, properly concluded that, 
under § 34-1-121(a), the Willoughbys' interest had legal superiority over River 
Properties's claim because the McDill deed had been recorded first and gave 
notice of the title to Lots 13 and 14. Since we have held that the dedication of 
the property to the public was valid, River Properties is bound by the property 
description which referred to Trails West Estates and may not claim a greater 
ownership than what the bank had.

 

[¶16]   Affirmed.

 

LEHMAN, Justice, dissenting. 

[¶17]   I respectfully dissent. While I am 
not offended by the result reached by the majority, the reasoning used to reach 
the result does not convince me to join. The issue to which I refer is the 
discrepancy between the metes and bounds description and the lot 
description.

 

[¶18]   The prior owners of the subject 
property obtained a deed which referenced the lots and blocks of the proposed Trails West Estates but 
then continued to describe the property with a metes and bounds description. 
There was a discrepancy between those descriptions, with the lots containing 
more property than the metes and bounds description. The majority does not deal 
with that discrepancy, but merely says the prior owners filed their deed first 
with notice of the lots and blocks and, therefore, their interest is 
superior.

 

[¶19]   Query: If the metes and bounds 
description contained more land than the lots as they were eventually platted 
and recorded, would the property owners be entitled to the metes and bounds 
description including the additional land because their interest was superior? A 
hierarchy has developed when a deed contains reference to a plat along with a 
metes and bounds description. Recognizing that a plat is simpler and a more 
accurate method of describing property, a plat description will generally 
prevail. However, if the description in the deed is intended to be superior to 
the plat, or is not intended to be a mere secondary restatement of the 
description in the plat, the deed description will prevail. 14 POWELL ON REAL 
PROPERTY, ch. 81A, ¶ 899[3] pp. 81A-113 & -114 (1997).

 

[¶20]   In this instance, the plat was not 
of record when the deed was prepared containing the reference. Given that fact, 
could the metes and bounds description be a mere secondary restatement of the 
plat description? If the plat was not recorded for anyone to see, was it 
attached to the deed? Was the proposed plat changed from the time it was 
referenced in the deed to the time it was recorded? Did the later transaction 
referencing only the lots on the now recorded plat in essence cure the original 
discrepancy? Which description prevails?

 

[¶21]   These are all questions left 
unanswered by the majority, and the discussion of the issue provides no 
guidance. 

 

Footnotes
 

1 We note at the outset that some of the 
briefs contain many pages of argument with few or no citations to the record or 
legal authority. The parties should not have put us in the position of having to 
speculate about the precise character of the issues and arguments in this case, 
and they will not, therefore, be heard to complain if we have not interpreted 
the record or framed the issues and the discussion as they would have 
wished.

2 Julie Willoughby was added as a party 
to this action on July 10, 1996.

3 River Properties's argument concerning 
Lot 15, Block 17 of Trails West Estates focuses on the validity of the 
dedication. River Properties does not argue that the district court's 
determination that the tax deed effectively established the superiority of the 
Willoughbys' title was in error.