Case Title: HOVENDICK v. RUBY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2000-08-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
HOVENDICK v. RUBY2000 WY 16910 P.3d 1119Case Number: 99-197Decided: 08/22/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
STANLEY HOVENDICK and 
LILLIAN HOVENDICK, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants),v. WILLIS RUBY, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Appeal from the District 
Court of Fremont County The Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, 
Judge

Representing 
Appellant: Robert A. Nicholas, 
Riverton, Wyoming.Representing Appellee: Richard D. Gist, Lander, 
Wyoming.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY,* GOLDEN, and HILL, 
JJ.

* retired June 2, 
2000

GOLDEN, J., delivers the 
opinion of the Court; THOMAS, J., files a dissenting 
opinion.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1] The trial 
court granted summary judgment to Appellee Willis Ruby (Ruby) on his adverse 
possession claim of an 18.94 acre parcel to which Appellants Stanley and Lillian 
Hovendick (Hovendicks) hold the legal title of record after determining that, 
for a twenty year period, Ruby had believed that a fence south of the actual 
boundary represented the true boundary line. The primary issue presented by this 
appeal is whether summary judgment can be granted on his belief without 
considering whether that fence is a fence of convenience. An additional issue 
presented is whether an oral contract to settle the dispute is 
enforceable.

[¶2] We hold 
that Ruby's belief, while establishing a presumption of adverse possession, 
requires consideration of whether the fence was a fence of convenience. Finding 
that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning the nature of the fence, 
we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for trial. We also 
hold that the district court's ruling on the issue of the oral contract is in 
error and remand for further reconsideration.

ISSUES

[¶3] The parties 
agree that the single issue for our review is whether the district court erred 
as a matter of law when it granted summary judgment to 
Appellee.

FACTS

[¶4] Ruby 
purchased his ranch from the Veaches in 1973. The ranch is located in Fremont 
County between Lander and Hudson, Wyoming. Part of the ranch land purchased is a 
large island known as Rogers Island, made up of land lying between channels of 
the Popo Agie River. Rogers Island includes parts of Lots 3 and 4 of Section 35. 
In 1993, Hovendicks purchased their ranch from Bill Frank. The ranch lies in 
parts of Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Section 35 and included 18.94 acres that lies 
adjacent to Rogers Island that Ruby now claims by adverse possession. As the 
attached map shows, the disputed 18.94 acre parcel is west of Ruby's legal 
property boundary. To the north of the disputed parcel lies the Popo Agie River, 
and to the south lies a channel of the river. South of the channel is a fence 
that runs east to west which Ruby claims he believed was the true boundary 
fence, and which we shall call the disputed fence. The disputed fence connects 
to another fence that runs north and south and apparently is a true boundary 
fence separating Lots 2 and 3. The legal description of Hovendicks' property 
indicates that its northern boundary is the middle of the Popo Agie River, and 
the disputed fence is south of the boundary.

[¶5] In 1928, 
the disputed parcel of land was actually part of the river. As river water was 
diverted, the disputed land emerged but was swampy and of little value. 
Hovendicks claim that Frank represented that when he bought the ranch, the 
disputed land was partially enclosed by the disputed fence placed south of the 
channel to keep cattle out of the river. Frank's son, Gary Frank, submitted a 
supplemental affidavit indicating that his father knew the true boundary line 
was the middle of the river's north channel, but that the swampy condition of 
the land dictated that the disputed fence be placed south of the south branch 
channel. Frank is also said to have represented to Hovendicks that he knew Ruby 
used the land, but did not care because the land was of little value. The record 
does not indicate when the disputed fence was actually erected and by whom. The 
Hovendicks claim that the disputed fence is a fence of convenience and was never 
intended as a boundary fence.

[¶6] When Ruby 
bought his ranch, he and Veach inspected various parts of the ranch and much of 
the ranch perimeter fences, including Rogers Island. Ruby claims that Veach 
represented to him that he owned all of the land north of the disputed fence and 
Frank owned all of the land south of the disputed fence. From 1973 until 1993, 
Ruby and Frank both repaired and maintained the fence. The location of the 
disputed fence was never changed except in the 1980s when Frank built a water 
gap for his cattle to reach water, and he changed part of the fence from barbed 
wire to a pole fence. Ruby claims that for each of these changes, Frank asked 
for and received his permission before making these changes. He claims that from 
1965 to 1993, Frank considered the fence to be the boundary fence, and from 1973 
to present, Ruby has always considered the fence to be the boundary fence 
between his property and Frank's. 

[¶7] In 1993, 
Hovendicks learned that Ruby believed that he owned the disputed parcel, and 
after proving to Ruby that Hovendicks had legal title, Hovendicks claim that 
Ruby's attorney suggested that Ruby may have a claim for adverse possession. 
Hovendicks claim that later in 1993, after discussing their respective ownership 
claims, Hovendicks and Ruby mutually agreed to split the disputed parcel, each 
taking about one half of it. Hovendicks then moved the fence and, for the next 
five years, used that portion exclusively and paid taxes on the property. 
Hovendicks cleared several acres and planted grass seed for pasturing horses. 
Hovendicks claim that both parties abided by this agreement for five 
years.

[¶8] In 1996, 
Frank died, and his estate closed in 1998. Hovendicks contend that Ruby waited 
until after Frank died before asserting his claim. Ruby claims that his business 
partnership with Hovendicks' son caused him to delay removing the fence and 
filing his adverse possession claim. He filed that claim on June 19, 1998. 
Hovendicks answered that Frank had granted Ruby permissive use of the land, 
denied that he had adversely possessed it, asserted that a survey demonstrated 
conclusively that they owned the disputed parcel, and claimed that the parties 
had an oral agreement to divide ownership of the disputed 
parcel.

[¶9] After 
discovery, motions for summary judgment were filed, and Ruby supported his 
motion with his affidavit and the affidavit of Gary Frank, Bill Frank's son. The 
trial court found that Ruby believed that he had purchased the land in 1973, and 
that between 1973 and 1993, had used the disputed land to pasture bulls and 
horses, and had used it during calving season. During this time period, Frank 
had twice asked permission to alter the fence. The court further found that 
Ruby's belief that he owned the disputed land continued until 1993, and the oral 
agreement to divide ownership of the disputed land was of no consequence because 
Ruby's adverse possession had matured in 1983, ten years after his purchase of 
the land and ten years before Hovendicks purchased their ranch from Frank. 
Summary judgment was granted in favor of Ruby, and this appeal 
followed.

DISCUSSION

Standard of 
Review

[¶10] Summary 
judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and 
the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mountain Cement 
Co. v. Johnson, 884 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1994); W.R.C.P. 56(c). We review a summary 
judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and 
following the same standards. "We examine the record from the vantage point most 
favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit 
of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the record." Four 
Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Constr., Inc., 809 P.2d 236, 238 (Wyo. 1991). Summary 
judgment serves the purpose of eliminating formal trials where only questions of 
law are involved. Blagrove v. JB Mechanical, Inc., 934 P.2d 1273, 1275 (Wyo. 
1997); England v. Simmons, 728 P.2d 1137, 1141 (Wyo. 1986). We review a grant of 
summary judgment by deciding a question of law de novo and afford no deference 
to the district court's ruling on that question. Sammons v. American Auto. 
Ass'n, 912 P.2d 1103, 1105 (Wyo. 1996); Blagrove, 934 P.2d  at 
1275.

Presumption of Adverse 
Possession

[¶11] In order 
to establish adverse possession, the claiming party must show actual, open, 
notorious, exclusive and continuous possession of another's property which is 
hostile and under claim of right or color of title. Possession must be for the 
statutory period, ten years. When there is no clear showing to the contrary, a 
person who has occupied the land for the statutory period, in a manner plainly 
indicating that he has acted as the owner thereof, is entitled to a presumption 
of adverse possession; and the burden shifts to the opposing party to explain 
such possession. However, if a claimant's use of the property is shown to be 
permissive, then he cannot acquire title by adverse possession. Hillard v. 
Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255, 1258-59 (Wyo. 1995) (citations 
omitted).

[¶12] The 
district court determined that Ruby's belief, although mistaken, that the 
disputed fence was a boundary fence and the fact that Frank on two occasions 
asked his permission to alter the fence supported a ruling that Ruby had 
adversely possessed the disputed parcel since 1973 and the statutory period 
matured in 1983. Ruby's mistaken belief does not establish adverse possession; 
it establishes a presumption of adverse possession:

[¶13] When a man 
has occupied a piece of ground, though under a mistaken belief as to the true 
boundary, for the period prescribed by law openly, notoriously, exclusively and 
in a manner plainly indicating that he acted as owner thereof, the presumption 
should be, in the absence of explanatory circumstances showing the contrary, 
that he occupied the land adversely and under a claim of right, casting the 
burden of explaining such possession upon the person who disputes his 
right.

[¶14] Hillard, 
888 P.2d  at 1259 (quoting City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 517, 273 P. 908, 915-16 (1929)).

[¶15] Hovendicks 
claim that facts showing that the disputed fence is a fence of convenience are a 
satisfactory explanation of possession showing that Ruby did not adversely 
possess the disputed land, and where those facts are demonstrated, summary 
judgment is improper. Hovendicks contend that material questions of fact exist 
whether the fence was a boundary fence or a fence of convenience requiring 
reversal of the order of summary judgment and remand for 
trial.

[¶16] We have 
described the effect of a fence of convenience on a presumption of adverse 
possession in this way:

[¶17] In some 
circumstances, enclosing land in a fence is sufficient to "raise the flag" of an 
adverse claimant. However, a fence kept simply for convenience has no effect 
upon the true boundary between tracts of land. This is so because a fence of 
convenience creates a permissive use, and a permissive user "cannot change his 
possession into adverse title no matter how long possession may be continued, in 
the absence of a clear, positive and continuous disclaimer and disavowal of the 
title of the true owner brought home to the latter's knowledge; there must be 
either actual notice of the hostile claims or acts or declarations of hostility 
so manifest and notorious that actual notice will be presumed in order to change 
a permissive or otherwise non-hostile possession into one that is 
hostile."

[¶18] Kimball v. 
Turner, 993 P.2d 303, 306 (Wyo. 1999) (quoting Hillard, 888 P.2d at 1261) 
(citations omitted).

[¶19] In this 
case, Ruby has established a presumption of adverse possession; however, 
Hovendicks have presented evidence that the disputed fence was a fence of 
convenience. "Whether a fence is a boundary fence or merely one of convenience 
is a question of fact." Kimball, 993 P.2d  at 305; see also Hillard, 888 P.2d  at 
1260. We find that Hovendicks' factual evidence on this issue is sufficient to 
reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for trial on this 
issue.

[¶20] Hovendicks 
next raise the issue of the effect of the 1993 oral agreement to divide the 
disputed land, contending that, although a trial could determine that Ruby had 
adversely possessed the disputed land in 1983, a factual issue exists whether, 
in 1993, the parties mutually agreed to divide ownership of the land. Ruby 
contends that the statute of frauds prohibits oral agreements for 
land.

[¶21] The 
statute of frauds, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-23-105 (LEXIS 1999), provides in relevant 
part:

(a) In the following 
cases every agreement shall be void unless such agreement, or some note or 
memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged 
therewith:

(v) Every agreement or 
contract for the sale of real estate, or the lease thereof, for more than one 
(1) year.

"The contract for the 
sale of real estate as contemplated by the statute is one for the transfer of 
property or real estate, for a fixed price in money or its equivalent." Miller 
v. Stovall, 717 P.2d 798, 802 (Wyo. 1986), overruled on other grounds, 811 P.2d 287, 290 (Wyo. 1991) (citing Allen v. Allen, 550 P.2d 1137, 1142 (Wyo. 1976)). 
Assuming without deciding that the alleged oral agreement between Hovendicks and 
Ruby involved a conveyance of land for proper consideration and is subject to 
the statute of frauds, we note that in Miller we referred favorably to several 
authorities on the law of real property as follows:

[6 Thompson on Real 
Property § 3035, p. 508 (1962)] states clearly that "oral agreements changing 
known boundary lines violate the statute of frauds." The rationale is that "* * 
* if the boundary line is not doubtful or in dispute, an oral agreement for its 
change is invalid, this involving an actual transfer of land, within the 
statute. * * *" 2 Tiffany, The Law of Real Property § 653, p. 679 (3d. ed. 
1939).

[¶22] Miller, 
717 P.2d  at 802. Hovendicks contend that the parties' substantial part 
performance of the contract makes it enforceable despite the statute of 
frauds.

[¶23] We have 
held that either full or part performance of a contract for the sale of land 
will avoid the statute of frauds defense. Davis v. Davis, 855 P.2d 342, 346 
(Wyo. 1993). The doctrine of part performance, however, will not be applied to 
avoid the statute of frauds unless the oral agreement sought to be enforced is 
just and certain and the elements of possession and part or full payment or its 
equivalent are proved beyond the possibility of findings to the contrary. Davis, 
855 P.2d  at 347. The record does not show that Ruby raised the statute of frauds 
as a defense to Hovendicks' motion in traverse of summary judgment and for 
trial, claiming that the oral argument was enforceable. The trial court ruled 
that, in light of its decision that Ruby's claim for adverse possession had 
matured in 1983, the oral contract need not be considered at all. On appeal, 
neither party analyzes whether the statute of frauds applies to the oral 
agreement or whether Davis' elements of part performance are established, and 
the limited record does not allow our further review.

[¶24] We find, 
however, that the trial court erred as a matter of law in deciding that the 
alleged oral contract was of no consequence, and we find no proper legal ground 
in the record for affirming it. In Re HC, 983 P.2d 1205, 1209 (Wyo. 1999). 
Accordingly, our standard of review requires that we must examine the record 
from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion and give 
that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn 
from the record. Hovendicks point to evidence that, as a result of the oral 
agreement, they took possession of their half of the disputed land, fenced on 
the newly established boundary line, cleared brush and planted grass seed for 
pasturing horses, and paid taxes. Ruby denies that there was any oral agreement. 
We agree that this evidence presents a factual question whether the parties 
reached an oral agreement to divide the land. Whether that oral agreement is 
unenforceable because of the statute of frauds presents a question of law that 
requires we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for reconsideration 
of the issue in light of our decisions in Miller and 
Davis.

[¶25] The order 
granting summary judgment is reversed and remanded for further consideration of 
whether the parties have divided ownership of the land by oral contract, and if 
that does not settle all claims, the case is remanded for trial on the issue of 
whether the disputed fence is a boundary fence or a fence of convenience. 

THOMAS, Justice, 
dissenting.

[¶26] 
Respectfully, I must dissent from the resolution of this case according to the 
majority opinion. I am satisfied that the trial court correctly entered summary 
judgment in favor of Ruby, albeit I rely upon a different correct, legal ground 
from that presented in the order granting summary judgment to Ruby and the 
clarification of that order that was entered later. The correct resolution of 
this case is reached by invoking the doctrine "of recognition and acquiescence 
of a boundary line," which was utilized by this court in Carstensen v. Brown, 32 
Wyo. 491, 236 P. 517, 519 (1925). That doctrine obviates any question of 
material fact about a fence of convenience, and supports the acquisition of 
title by Ruby, in addition to the doctrine of adverse possession. With respect 
to the contract claimed by the Hovendicks, there clearly was not substantial 
performance of any obligation owed by the Hovendicks to Ruby, and the trial 
court correctly ignored that claim. I would affirm the Order entered by the 
trial court.

[¶27] This Court 
first recognized and applied the doctrine "of recognition and acquiescence of a 
boundary line" in Carstensen, 236 P.  at 520-521. The doctrine was invoked to 
award title to Brown, even though in an earlier opinion in the same case, 
Carstensen v. Brown, 26 Wyo. 356, 185 P. 567, 569 (1919), the court had ruled 
that there was not sufficient evidence to support a claim of adverse possession. 
The result of the second case was described in City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 
Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 911 (1929), as "diametrically opposite to that reached on 
the first appeal."

[¶28] In his 
usual, diligent fashion, Justice Blume examined the doctrine critically and 
thoroughly. The opinion explained the doctrine of acquiescence and recognition 
and distinguished it from adverse possession saying:

[¶29] The 
doctrine of recognition and acquiescence of a boundary line is upheld by many 
authorities. 9 C. J. 244; Tiffany, Real Property (2d Ed.) § 295; Thompson on 
Real Property, § 3112. It is sometimes referred to as acquiescence in, or as a 
practical location of, or as an implied agreement as to, a boundary. Considering 
all of the various jurisdictions in the United States, the doctrine is still in 
a chaotic condition, and no one has yet undertaken to point out definitely the 
circumstances under which it is applicable. Some of the authorities consider 
long acquiescence only as evidence of a boundary, which may be contradicted. 
Tiffany, supra, § 295. Other authorities say that an agreement may be inferred 
or presumed from such acquiescence. Note, 110 A. S. R. 685. The doctrine seems 
to occupy a middle ground between adverse possession and estoppel in pais. It is 
frequently held that, in order to work an estoppel by conduct, it is necessary 
that the party against whom it is claimed should have knowledge of the true 
boundary (Bigelow on Estoppel [16th Ed.] p. 674) and, as said in Carstensen v. 
Brown, 26 Wyo. 360, 185 P. 567, where both parties are ignorant thereof and have 
an equal opportunity to know the facts, no estoppel arises. It may be said, 
however, in this connection, that in many states long acquiescence is accepted 
as a substitute for knowledge of the facts, and an estoppel may arise in cases 
of mistake by acquiescence, in connection with a change of situation. Bigelow, 
supra, p. 675. See Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556, 168 N.W. 857, where some 
distinctions between the two doctrines were pointed out. In adverse possession 
it is requisite, according to the majority of decisions, including Fieldhouse v. 
Leisburg, 15 Wyo. 207, 88 P. 214, that there be an intent to claim up to a 
marked division line without reference to where the true line may be, and, if it 
appears that there was only an intent to hold to the true line, the possession 
is not adverse, and no title by prescription may be obtained. Note, 15 Ann. Cas. 
827; Note Ann. Cas. 1912A, 450; 2 C. J. 139. Indeed, some of the authorities 
have held that no title by adverse possession can be acquired through a mistake, 
although in the greater number of cases at least some mistake exists when 
possession is taken of another's property. Note, 21 L. R. A. 831. Such holding 
practically results in this, that the intent necessary to make possession 
adverse is akin to a felonious intent (Ibid), thus virtually making it 
impossible to gain any prescriptive title. The trend of opinion is said in a 
note to 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 930, to be against disturbing a person whose visible 
boundaries have existed for the period of the statute of limitations. Indeed, 
some of the authorities have distinctly repudiated the view that it is necessary 
to claim beyond the true boundary, and that, if a man occupies and claims what 
he believes to be his own, his possession is adverse and ripens into title upon 
the expiration of the statutory time. Yetzer v. Thoman, 17 Ohio St. 130, 91 Am. 
Dec. 122; French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 440, 21 Am. Dec. 680; Bayhouse v. Urquides, 
17 Idaho, 286, 105 P. 1066; Notes, 15 Ann. Cas. 829, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 451; 
Ramsey v. Ogden, 23 Or. 347, 31 P. 778. It would seem that in Ohio and Indiana 
the courts treat recognition and acquiescence in a boundary line for a period 
equal to that of the statute of limitations the same as adverse possession for a 
like period. Yetzer v. Thoman, supra; Helbling v. Realty Co., 2 Ohio App. 478; 
Rutledge v. Presbyterian Church, 3 Ohio App. 177; Epstein v. Kraft, 16 Ohio Cir. 
Ct. (N. S.) 251; Thomas v. Webber, 13 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 301; Scheigert v. 
Boyer, 69 Ind. App. 674, 122 N.E. 670; Rosenmeier v. Mahrenholz, 179 Ind. 467, 
101 N.E. 721; Dyer v. Eldridge, 136 Ind. 654, 36 N.E. 522. But, according to 
most of the courts, it is not identical with it, and the two doctrines are 
treated as distinct. Miller v. Mills County, 111 Iowa, 654, 82 N.W. 1038; Morley 
v. Murphy, 179 Iowa, 853, 162 N.W. 63; Hubbard v. Stearns, 86 Ill. 35; Brummell 
v. Harris, 148 Mo. 430, 440, 50 S.W. 93; Schwartzer v. Gebhardt, 157 Mo. 99, 
104, 57 S.W. 782. See Lehman v. Smith, supra. The distinction is pointed out in 
the last-cited case [Schwartzer] as follows:

"It is well settled that 
the possession of coterminous proprietors under a mistake or in ignorance of the 
true line, between them and without intending to claim beyond the true line, 
will not work a disseisin, and set in motion the statute of limitation in favor 
of either, but it is equally as well settled that when such proprietors, in 
ignorance of the true line, fix and agree upon a permanent boundary line, and 
possession is taken accordingly, the agreement is binding upon them, and those 
claiming under them. Jacobs v. Moseley, 91 Mo. 457. Such an agreement is not 
within the statute of frauds. Taylor v. Zepp, 14 Mo. 482; Blair v. Smith, 16 Mo. 
273; Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218; Acton v. Dooley, 74 Mo. 63. Nor is it 
necessary that such an agreement should be shown by direct evidence, but it may 
be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties, and their long 
acquiescence and recognition of the line established as the true 
line."

Carstensen, 236 P.  at 
519-20.

[¶30] In the 
course of the opinion of the court, Justice Blume alluded to probably all of the 
then extant authorities, including scholarly treatises. A disagreement among 
authorities as to a requirement for a dispute or uncertainty with respect to the 
boundary line was noted. Further, a distinction was made between the passage of 
time in the case of an express agreement as to a boundary line as distinguished 
from an implied agreement. Acquiescence for only a short period of time would 
not be perceived as demonstrating a clear intention to recognize a permanent 
boundary, but the continuation of such acquiescence for a period of time 
equivalent to the statute of limitation for adverse possession seems to have 
been required by the majority of the authorities. The acquiescence must be 
bilateral, and with knowledge or notice of the claims of the other party. It was 
in this context that the opinion went on to state:

[¶31] Thus the 
existence of a division fence does not alone show the requisite facts. It may be 
kept up only for the convenience of the parties. 9 C. J. 246. But we think we 
may safely say that when there is recognition and acquiescence of the parties in 
a boundary line, uncertain or in dispute in the first instance, for a period 
equal at least to the prescriptive period, under facts and circumstances which 
should be considered equivalent to an express agreement, and the land on each 
side of the line is occupied by the respective parties as their land, no good 
reason exists why the parties should not be bound to the same extent as though 
such express agreement had been made and carried out, particularly when facts 
exist which would make any other holding inequitable.

Carstensen, 236 P.  at 
521.

[¶32] After 
quoting from other authorities to support this proposition, the opinion then 
explains that, while there may be room for the rule of mutual mistake with 
respect to the doctrine of acquiescence and recognition, normally a simple 
mutual mistake as to the true boundary would not interfere with the application 
of the doctrine. The holding of the court then is announced in the context of a 
recitation of the material facts:

[¶33] We think 
that the rule mentioned is applicable in the case at bar. That the boundary line 
was uncertain is unquestioned; it is even uncertain now. With that in view the 
predecessor in interest of plaintiff erected a fence. This was about 1901. 
Greet, defendant's predecessor in interest, established his homestead in 
accordance with that line, and so did defendant, when he bought of Greet in 
1904. Plaintiff purchased his land in 1904; he knew that Greet, and subsequently 
defendant, were in possession of the land east and north of the division fence, 
presumptively claiming ownership thereof. The parties in 1904 and 1905 jointly 
built an irrigating ditch, partially on defendant's land, which was used by 
defendant to irrigate the land east of the fence, and by plaintiff to irrigate 
land west of the fence. The fence was kept up jointly; each of the parties doing 
more or less repair work on it from time to time. Plaintiff and defendant 
exchanged farm work at least as early as 1908; the former often helping the 
latter farm said land on the east side of the dividing line. In fact, plaintiff 
helped defendant in breaking up some of his land and in putting it in 
cultivation. The witness Ilg testified that plaintiff showed him the boundary 
line on the northwest of the latter's land, a quarter of a mile west of the 
northern part of the fence mentioned. This was in effect the same thing as 
though the fence in question had been pointed out as a boundary line, and was, 
if true, a distinct recognition that the fence was the true boundary line. From 
1901 to 1919 the fence stood as a dividing line, and was never questioned as 
such, at least so far as came to defendant's knowledge, until shortly before 
this suit was brought in January, 1919.

Carstensen, 236 P.  at 
523.

[¶34] This 
doctrine still is recognized in Wyoming, although it has not been applied in the 
following cases. Kimball v. Turner, 993 P.2d 303 (Wyo. 1999); Coumas v. 
Transcontinental Garage, 68 Wyo. 99, 230 P.2d 748 (1951); Hudson v. Erickson, 67 
Wyo. 167, 216 P.2d 379 (1950); Johnson v. Szumowicz, 63 Wyo. 211, 179 P.2d 1012 
(1947); State v. Vanderkoppel, 45 Wyo. 432, 19 P.2d 955 (1933); and Porter v. 
Carstensen, 40 Wyo. 156, 274 P. 1072 (1929). None of these cases arose in the 
context of a summary judgment, and all of them were found to be distinguishable 
from Carstensen for various reasons. This case was not decided on the doctrine 
of acquiescence and recognition, but it indeed serves as a correct, legal ground 
upon which we can affirm the trial court. We will affirm a grant of summary 
judgment if it can be sustained on any legal ground appearing in the record. 
Franks v. Olson, 975 P.2d 588, 592 (Wyo. 1999); Newberry v. Board of County 
Com'rs of Fremont County, 919 P.2d 141, 144 (Wyo. 1996); Duncan v. Town of 
Jackson, 903 P.2d 548, 551 (Wyo. 1995); Bidache Inc. v. Martin, 899 P.2d 872, 
874 (Wyo. 1995); Moncrief v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516, 
523 (Wyo. 1993).

[¶35] An 
analysis of the evidence, in the form of the several affidavits, in the record 
in this case discloses the absence of any admissible or relevant evidence that 
the fence in question was a fence of convenience. Some of that evidence relates 
to interaction between Ruby and Bill Frank, who was the Hovendicks' predecessor 
in interest. Other evidence relates to interaction between Bill Frank and F. F. 
Veach, who was Ruby's predecessor in interest. What evidence there is is 
consistent only with the proposition that the fence was a boundary 
fence.

[¶36] In his 
affidavit, Willis Ruby stated:

After I bought the Veach 
ranch in 1973 until Bill Frank sold his ranch to the Defendants [Hovendicks] in 
1993, I had talked to Bill Frank many times about the original boundary fence 
located south of the river channel. Many of these conversations took place at 
the fence itself. Many of the conversations concerned repairing the fence 
because either his or my livestock had gone through it or the fence had gotten 
damaged by wild game or by just general winter conditions. From time to time 
between 1973 and 1993, both Bill Frank and I repaired the fence when it got 
damaged. When discussing this fence it was always understood and agreed that the 
existing fence, the original boundary fence, was the boundary fence between his 
land and mine. He never used any of the land on my side of the fence and I never 
used any of the land on his side of the fence. When we, or either of us 
repaired, the fence, it was always kept in the same place except that about 15 
or 16 years ago when Bill Frank and I were out along the fence, Bill Frank asked 
me if he could move a piece of the fence across the river so he could have a 
water gap to water his livestock. * * *

* * * Bill Frank told me 
he never claimed any ownership of any of the Disputed Land and that he knew that 
the people he bought his ranch from in January 1966 never claimed any interest 
in the Disputed Land either.

[¶37] In his 
initial affidavit, provided for Ruby, Gary Frank reported that Veach complained 
about the trespass by a rodeo bull owned by his father, Bill Frank, and told his 
father to keep his bulls off of Veach's land. Gary Frank also reported that on 
another occasion Veach complained about a fire started on the Frank land that 
burned some of the foliage on Veach's land. Gary Frank also stated that if his 
father had thought he owned the land he would not have requested permission to 
build the water gap, and he would have argued with Veach when Veach complained. 
Gary Frank stated that the only fence that ever divided his father's ranch from 
the ranch land owned by Veach and later Ruby was the fence relied upon by 
Ruby.

[¶38] In 
opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ruby, the Hovendicks presented 
a second affidavit from Gary Frank, which was "intended to supplement and 
clarify my earlier affidavit and otherwise set forth additional facts that I 
have been asked to set out for purposes of the lawsuit between Mr. Ruby and the 
Hovendicks." The affidavit is a contrived effort to structure a genuine issue of 
material fact. After stating his understanding that the property line of Bill 
Frank's ranch was the middle of the south branch of the Big Popo Agie River, and 
noting that you could not put a fence in the middle of the river and that it 
must be placed in a more convenient and practical location, Gary Frank states 
that "[t]he current fence was the boundary that separated dad's use of his 
property from his neighbors [sic] property and visa versa." He further states 
that he knows "from practical experience as a rancher for many years that fences 
are placed where they are most convenient and most practical for the operation 
if the actual boundary line is either not accessible or not practical." He then 
gives his opinion that the fence in issue was so constructed. Following the 
recitation of a number of facts designed to support that opinion, Gary Frank 
concludes his second affidavit by saying, "[t]he fence was placed where it was, 
most likely, because that was the most practical place to put 
it."

[¶39] For at 
least a quarter of a century, it has been the rule in Wyoming 
that:

[f]or a summary judgment 
motion to be successful, the movant must make a prima facie showing that no 
genuine issue of material fact exists. Clark v. Industrial Co. of Steamboat 
Springs, Inc., 818 P.2d 626, 628 (Wyo. 1991) (quoting TZ Land & Cattle Co. 
v. Condict, 795 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Wyo. 1990)). The burden thereafter shifts to 
the opposing party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material 
fact. Weber v. McCoy, 950 P.2d 548, 551 (Wyo. 1997).

[¶40] Gordon v. 
Spectrum, Inc., 981 P.2d 488, 491-92 (Wyo. 1999). See Wells v. Board of Trustees 
of Laramie County School Dist. No. 1, 3 P.3d 861, 864 (Wyo. 2000); Hittel v. 
WOTCO, Inc., 996 P.2d 673, 677 (Wyo. 2000); and Wood v. Trenchard, 550 P.2d 490, 
492 (Wyo. 1976).

[¶41] After a 
movant has adequately supported the motion for summary judgment, the opposing 
party must come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing 
there are genuine issues of material fact. Wyo.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Hyatt v. Big Horn 
Sch. Dist. No. 4, 636 P.2d 525, 528 (Wyo. 1981). The opposing party must 
affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to a motion for 
summary judgment, Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704, 710 
(Wyo. 1987), and cannot rely only upon allegations and pleadings, Hyatt, 636 P.2d  at 530, and conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient to 
satisfy the opposing party's burden. Boehm, 748 P.2d  at 
710.

[¶42] Downen v. 
Sinclair Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515, 519 (Wyo. 1994). A number of Wyoming cases 
invoke and apply these rules. E.g., Simek v. Rocky Mountain, Inc., 977 P.2d 687, 
689 (Wyo. 1999); Smith v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Sublette 891 P.2d 88, 91 (Wyo. 1995); Sanchez v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 855 P.2d 1256, 1257 (Wyo. 1993); Moore v. Lubnau, 855 P.2d 1245, 1248 (Wyo. 1993); Oatts 
v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 110-11 (Wyo. 1991); TZ Land & Cattle Co. v. 
Condict, 795 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Wyo. 1990); and Claassen v. Nord, 756 P.2d 189, 
194 (Wyo. 1988).

[¶43] Applying 
these rules to the record in this case, it is clear that the majority does not 
question that by his affidavit and the first Gary Frank affidavit, Ruby made out 
a prima facie case for title by adverse possession. While the majority opinion 
alludes to contentions by the Hovendicks found in their pleadings, the only 
source of any factual information that could meet the requirements of W.R.C.P. 
56(e)1 is the second affidavit of Gary 
Frank. It is replete with conclusory statements and opinions. Any factual matter 
that would conform to W.R.C.P. 56(e) is neither relevant nor material. To the 
extent that the existence of a fence of convenience might be inferred, his 
affidavit would require sequential inferences, which would fail the rule found 
in Matter of Estate of Roosa, 753 P.2d 1028, 1035 (Wyo. 1988). Even more 
egregious is that still these inferences would not possess the requisite quality 
to meet the direct testimony offered by Ruby in his affidavit. Matter of Estate 
of Roosa, 753 P.2d  at 1035; Blackmore v. Davis Oil Co., 671 P.2d 334, 337 (Wyo. 
1983). In my judgment, the Hovendicks have failed to produce any factual matter 
to overcome the direct testimony of Ruby that the fence was a boundary 
fence.

[¶44] With 
respect to the oral contract that the Hovendicks rely upon as establishing a 
division of the disputed lands, the majority opinion points out that such a 
contract is within the statute of frauds. It presents the exception to avoid the 
statute of frauds that we have recognized as part performance. Davis v. Davis, 
855 P.2d 342, 346 (Wyo. 1993). It then points to only those facts that 
demonstrate the Hovendicks took advantage of the use of the land they claimed 
under the oral agreement. Nothing reflects any performance by the Hovendicks of 
any obligation owed Ruby pursuant to the alleged oral contract. It is clear, 
however, that the Hovendicks are the record owners of the tract in question, and 
the only way they could perform their obligation under the alleged oral contract 
would be to convey to Ruby the part of the tract they assert was to belong to 
him. There is nothing in the record that would tend to show this performance on 
the part of the Hovendicks.

[¶45] For these 
reasons, I would affirm the Order of the trial court that granted summary 
judgment to Ruby.

FOOTNOTES

1 W.R.C.P. 
56(e) provides:

(e) 
Form of affidavits; further testimony; defense required. - Supporting and 
opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such 
facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the 
affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or 
certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit 
shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits 
to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or 
further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as 
provided in this rule an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or 
denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by 
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts 
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not 
so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the 
adverse party.