Case Title: Willowbrook Ranch, Inc. v. Nugget Exploration, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 94-272

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Willowbrook Ranch, Inc. v. Nugget Exploration, Inc.1995 WY 89896 P.2d 769Case Number: 94-272Decided: 06/09/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

WILLOWBROOK RANCH, INC., a Wyoming corporation,

Appellant (Defendant),

v.

NUGGET EXPLORATION, INC., a Nevada 
corporation,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Fremont County, D. Terry Rogers, 
J.

John T. Pappas of Western 
Law Associates, Lander, for 
appellant.

Robert Jerry Hand and Thomas 
E. Lubnau, II of Lubnau, Hand & Bailey, LLC, Casper, for appellee.

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

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant 
Willowbrook Ranch, Inc. appeals from a judgment which decreed that only the 
surface grazing rights were conveyed to Willowbrook Ranch on the tracts of land 
described in a quitclaim deed granted by Timba-Bah Mining Company. Willowbrook 
Ranch also appeals from the district court's denial of its motion to amend and 
clarify the judgment.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

Issues

[¶3]      Willowbrook Ranch 
presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the doctrines of judicial estoppel and/or 
collateral estoppel should bind the appellee to the legal position jointly taken 
between the appellee's predecessor in interest, Timba[-B]ah Mining Co., Inc. and 
the appellant in a 1968 quiet title action and judgment.

2. Whether, if not reversed, the judgment must be 
clarified to protect appellant's grazing rights in the surface from interference 
or destruction by the plaintiff without recourse or 
compensation.

Facts

[¶4]      On March 9, 1966, 
Timba-Bah Mining conveyed by quitclaim deed "all of the surface grazing rights, 
including B.L.M. rights" in several tracts of land to Willowbrook Ranch, while 
reserving all minerals and mineral rights in that property for itself. 
Willowbrook Ranch, as the owner of the surface grazing rights, and Timba-Bah 
Mining, as the owner of the mineral rights, brought an action on May 28, 1968, 
to quiet the title in the property against several defendants. Pursuant to the 
prayer in Willowbrook Ranch's and Timba-Bah Mining's complaint, the district 
court quieted the title to the surface grazing rights in Willowbrook Ranch and 
quieted the title to the mineral rights in Timba-Bah Mining on August 12, 1968. 
On June 15, 1981, Timba-Bah Mining conveyed its mineral rights in the tracts of 
land to Appellee Nugget Exploration, Inc., and Willowbrook Ranch conveyed its 
surface grazing rights in the property to Stevan J. Smith by a quitclaim deed 
which was recorded on June 13, 1989.

[¶5]      On November 14, 
1991, Nugget Exploration filed an action for declaratory judgment against Smith 
and Willowbrook Ranch, seeking to have the respective parties' rights in the 
property determined. Willowbrook Ranch and Smith counterclaimed, seeking to 
quiet the title in the surface grazing rights to the property. The district 
court granted a summary judgment on March 23, 1992, in favor of Nugget 
Exploration, finding that, on its face, the 1966 quitclaim deed was unambiguous 
and that Nugget Exploration was

the record owner of the entire fee simple estate . . 
. subject only to surface grazing rights, including B.L.M. rights, conveyed to 
Defendant Willowbrook Ranch, Inc., by virtue of that certain quitclaim deed . . 
. recorded on June 9, 1966. . . .

[¶6]      On appeal, this 
Court held that the deed was ambiguous and that the ambiguity created a genuine 
issue of material fact with respect to the parties' intention, which precluded 
the entry of a summary judgment. Smith v. Nugget Exploration, Inc., 857 P.2d 320, 324 (Wyo. 1993). More specifically, we identified the issue as being 
"whether the entire surface estate or something less than that called `surface 
grazing rights' was conveyed in the 1966 deed." 857 P.2d  at 323. We reversed the 
summary judgment and remanded the case for further 
proceedings.

[¶7]      The district 
court heard the matter on remand. Although the trial of this matter was not 
reported, the district court made detailed findings of fact and granted a 
judgment in favor of Nugget Exploration. The court held that Nugget Exploration 
had "the sole and exclusive right, title, and interest in and to any and all of 
the rock tailings, dredge tailings, sand tailings, gravel, sand, stockpiles, 
residue, and overburden" located on the property and the "entire and exclusive 
right to mine, dig, carry away, extract, and sell" the same. The district court 
declared that Willowbrook Ranch's sole interest in the property was the surface 
grazing rights, including B.L.M. rights.

[¶8]      Willowbrook Ranch 
filed a motion to amend and to clarify the judgment, requesting that the 
district court delineate the rights and incidents of Willowbrook Ranch's surface 
grazing rights, which motion was denied. This appeal followed.1

Estoppel

[¶9]      Willowbrook Ranch 
contends that, under the doctrines of judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel, 
the judgment entered in the 1968 quiet title action was a bar to the present 
litigation.

A. Judicial Estoppel

[¶10]   This court has invoked the doctrine 
of judicial estoppel on several occasions. RKS v. SDM, 882 P.2d 1217, 1224 (Wyo. 
1994). We have described judicial estoppel as being

a 
doctrine which estops a party to play fast and loose with the courts or to 
trifle with judicial proceedings. It is an expression of the maxim that one 
cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. A party will just not be allowed to 
maintain inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings. . . 
.

Allen v. Allen, 550 P.2d 1137, 1142 (Wyo. 1976). Judicial estoppel binds a party by his judicial 
declarations, and that party

"may not contradict them in a subsequent proceeding 
involving [the] same issues and parties. . . . Under this doctrine, a party who 
by his pleadings, statements or contentions, under oath, has assumed a 
particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an 
inconsistent position in a subsequent action."

DLB v. DJB (Paternity of 
JRW), 814 P.2d 1256, 1265-66 (Wyo. 1991) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 761 
(5th ed. 1979)). In addition to the requirement of "inconsistent positions," 
most courts also require that the initial position taken must be one regarding 
fact. In other words, judicial estoppel does not apply to legal conclusions 
which were reached on the basis of undisputed facts. RKS, 882 P.2d  at 
1224.

[¶11]   When no transcript has been made of 
the trial proceedings, this Court accepts the trial court's findings as being 
the only basis for deciding the issues which pertain to the evidence. Armstrong 
v. Pickett, 865 P.2d 49, 50 (Wyo. 1993). In the absence of anything to refute 
them, we will sustain the trial court's findings, and we assume that the 
evidence presented was sufficient to support those findings. Osborn v. Pine 
Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165, 1167 (Wyo. 1989).

[¶12]   The district court found that the 
1968 quiet title action was not a bar to Nugget Exploration's present claim 
because "the positions of the parties [were] not contradictory to the present 
position of [Nugget Exploration], and the positions taken in the quiet title 
action [were] not identical to the positions taken in this action." In bringing 
the quiet title action, Timba-Bah Mining and Willowbrook Ranch intended to clear 
their titles against several defendants and not to affect the relative ownership 
interests between them in any way. The action merely quieted the title in each 
to its respective ownership as was established by the 1966 quitclaim 
deed.

[¶13]   Willowbrook Ranch has failed to 
show that Nugget Exploration maintained an inconsistent position or that the 
positions taken in the 1968 quiet title action were identical to the positions 
taken in this case. The doctrine of judicial estoppel did not bar Nugget 
Exploration from bringing its declaratory judgment action against Willowbrook 
Ranch.

B. Collateral Estoppel

[¶14]   When determining whether collateral 
estoppel applies, courts should consider four factors:

(1) whether the issue decided in the prior 
adjudication was identical with the 
issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication 
resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom 
collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the 
prior adjudication; and (4) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel 
is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior 
proceeding.

Slavens v. Board of County 
Commissioners for Uinta County, 854 P.2d 683, 686 (Wyo. 1993) (emphasis in 
original). The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents "`relitigation of issues 
which were involved actually and necessarily in the prior action between the 
same parties.'" Matthews v. Fetzner, 768 P.2d 590, 592 (Wyo. 1989) (quoting 
Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 214 (Wyo. 1984)).

[¶15]   As plaintiffs in the 1968 quiet 
title action, Timba-Bah Mining and Willowbrook Ranch sought to quiet their 
titles against the claims of various defendants. It logically follows that the 
judgment in that action had no influence on the rights of the plaintiffs with 
respect to one another as they did not present the issue of their relative 
rights. In the case at bar, Nugget Exploration sought to establish the parties' 
respective rights to the property. The issues involved in the two proceedings, 
therefore, were not identical, and the prior adjudication did not result in a 
judgment being entered on the merits which were involved in the current case. 
The doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar Nugget Exploration from bringing 
its declaratory judgment action against Willowbrook Ranch.

Clarification of 
Judgment

[¶16]   Willowbrook Ranch claims that the 
district court's judgment must be clarified in order to protect Willowbrook 
Ranch's grazing rights in the surface from possible interference or destruction 
by Nugget Exploration. Nugget Exploration contends that Willowbrook Ranch is 
requesting that an advisory opinion be rendered and that this Court should 
refuse to provide one. We agree. "This Court has repeatedly said that it will 
not issue advisory opinions." Briggs v. Wyoming National Bank of Casper, 836 P.2d 263, 266 (Wyo. 1992).

Conclusion

[¶17]   We hold that the district court did 
not err when it granted the declaratory judgment in favor of Nugget 
Exploration.

[¶18]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTE

1 Smith conveyed a mortgage deed to the 
property back to Willowbrook Ranch after the judgment had been entered. Smith, 
therefore, is not involved in this appeal.