Case Title: Hirsch v. McNeill

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93-101

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hirsch v. McNeill1994 WY 31870 P.2d 1057Case Number: 93-101Decided: 03/17/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
W. 
Dean HIRSCH and Jamie L. Hirsch, 

Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),

v.

Bob 
G. McNEILL and Dorothy O. McNeill, 

Appellees 
(Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court, Park County, 

John 
C. Brackley, J.

Representing 
Appellant:

W. 
Dean Hirsch and Jamie L. Hirsch, appellants, pro se.

Representing 
Appellee:

R. 
Scott Kath and Tracy J. Copenhaver, Copenhaver, Kath & Kitchen, 
Powell.

 

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

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants, W. 
Dean Hirsch and Jamie L. Hirsch (Hirsches), appeal from a district court order 
dismissing their quiet title action against appellees, Bob G. McNeill and 
Dorothy O. McNeill (McNeills). The district court dismissed appellants' case 
because they did not have an interest in the real estate in which they sought to 
quiet title.

[¶2]      We affirm that 
dismissal.

[¶3]      The Hirsches 
present several issues:

1. 
Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine 
an exclusive state law cause of action - a Quiet Title 
Action.

2. 
Whether the United States is an indispensable party in the instant matter under 
Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

3. 
Whether the Justice Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine 
a forcible entry and detainer action based upon the facts in the instant 
matter.

4. 
Whether the Hirsches have attempted to circumvent jurisdiction of the Federal 
Court and the Park County, Wyoming, Justice Court by claiming this is a "Quiet 
Title Action."

FACTS

[¶4]      On May 22, 1978, 
the Hirsches conveyed title to their home (the property), located at 920 West 
Seventh Street in Powell, Wyoming, to the Hidden Oak Trust. On October 5, 1984, 
the United States brought suit, in the United States District Court for the 
District of Wyoming, against the Hirsches and the Hidden Oak Trust for 
delinquent income taxes for the years 1974-1979. On December 17, 1984, that 
federal district court entered a default judgment against the Hidden Oak Trust 
in the amount of unpaid taxes and interest alleged to be due from the Hirsches. 
The Hirsches, sometime in early 1985, tried to appeal the default judgment 
against the Hidden Oak Trust to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the 
Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal in April 1985.

[¶5]      On October 29, 
1986, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming issued a 
judgment on the pleadings against the Hirsches and the Hidden Oak Trust in favor 
of the United States, and ordered in part:

3. 
That the United States be, and hereby is, granted judgment on the 
pleadings;

4. 
That the United States have judgment against W. Dean Hirsch in the sum of 
$185,765.33, plus accrued interest. 

5. 
That the United States be, and hereby is, authorized to foreclose tax liens held 
by it against the property at 920 W. 7th Street, Powell, 
Wyoming[.]

Neither 
the Hirsches nor the Hidden Oak Trust appealed from that federal judgment and 
order.

[¶6]      Pursuant to the 
above judgment and statutory authority provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6331, the United 
States, on June 25, 1992, seized the property and notified the Hidden Oak Trust, 
the record owner, of the seizure. On August 11, 1992, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 
6335, the United States sold the seized property by sealed bid to the McNeills 
and issued the McNeills a certificate of sale. The Hidden Oak Trust did not 
redeem the property within 180 days, as permitted by 26 U.S.C. § 6337; thus, on 
February 8, 1993, the United States issued a quit claim deed for the property to 
the McNeills. On February 9, 1993, the McNeills began a forcible entry and 
detainer action by giving written notice to the Hirsches and the Hidden Oak 
Trust to quit the premises, pursuant to W.S. 1-21-1003.

[¶7]      On February 11, 
1993, the Hirsches filed a complaint in the Fifth Judicial District Court of 
Wyoming, against the McNeills, to quiet title to the subject property. The 
complaint in the quiet title action alleged that the certificate of sale and the 
quit claim deed issued by the United States to the McNeills were invalid because 
the United States allegedly committed a number of procedural errors when 
assessing the tax deficiency and when seizing and selling the property. Actions 
to quiet title are governed by W.S. 1-32-201 (1988), which 
provides:

An 
action may be brought by a person in possession of real property against any 
person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose 
of determining the adverse estate or interest. The person bringing the action 
may hold possession himself or by his tenant.

In 
order to maintain a quiet title action, the plaintiff must have (1) possession, 
and (2) legal title or some interest in the property. Black v. Beagle, 59 
Wyo. 268, 286, 140 P.2d 594, 595, 148 A.L.R. 243 (1943).

[¶8]      The McNeills 
answered the complaint, raising several defenses including the Hirsches' failure 
to state a cause of action for which they are entitled to relief, res judicata, 
judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel, and waiver, and asserting a counterclaim 
in ejectment.

[¶9]      On February 15, 
1993, the McNeills filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer against the 
Hirsches in Park County Justice Court. On March 3, 1993, the Hirsches moved for 
partial summary judgment in their quiet title action, seeking a court order 
quieting their title. The district court, on March 9, 1993, dismissed the 
Hirsches' quiet title action, finding that the Hirsches were improperly using 
the quiet title action to undermine the federal court's and the Park County 
Justice Court's jurisdiction and trying to appeal a federal judgment in state 
court. The Hirsches appeal from that judgment.

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   In their briefs, neither the 
Hirsches nor the McNeills addressed the appropriate standard of review. 
Additionally, the district court's order does not specify which rule in the 
Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure it was invoking in its dismissal of appellants' 
case. In their answer to the Hirsches' complaint, the McNeills raised W.R.C.P. 
12(b)(6) as an affirmative defense. "[A] Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is 
converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment if materials outside the 
pleadings are considered. If affidavits are considered, conversion occurs 
automatically." Stalkup v. State Dep't of Environmental Quality, 838 P.2d 705, 709 (Wyo. 1992) (citations omitted); see also LC v. TL, 870 P.2d 374 
(Wyo. 1994).

[¶11]   In this case conversion occurred 
automatically when the court considered the number of exhibits submitted by the 
McNeills and the Hirsches filed a motion for partial summary judgment along with 
affidavits and numerous exhibits. Stalkup, 838 P.2d  at 709. The Hirsches 
waived the tenday response period for a converted motion because they failed to 
object to the McNeills' exhibits attached to their pleadings and since the 
Hirsches submitted affidavits and exhibits themselves. Id. Therefore, we 
review the district court's order as one granting summary judgment, 
and

we 
[must] make a dual finding that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and 
that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.

Davidson 
v. Sherman, 
848 P.2d 1341, 1343 (Wyo. 1993).

[¶12]   Although the Hirsches in their 
complaint alleged that they are the owners of the property to which they seek to 
quiet title, the record clearly does not support that allegation. In their 
motion for partial summary judgment, the Hirsches failed to present any proof of 
their claim of title or even that they had "color of title." "Color of title" is 
"an instrument which has a semblance or appearance of title but is not title in 
fact or law." Doenz v. Garber, 665 P.2d 932, 936 (Wyo. 1983). The only 
document the Hirsches presented which addresses title to the property is the 
IRS's "Record of Seizure and Sale of Real Estate," which states that the Hidden 
Oak Trust (not the Hirsches) owned the property before the seizure and 
sale.

[¶13]   Additionally, the exhibits 
presented by the McNeills support a conclusion that the Hirsches have no claim 
of title or "color of title" to the property. Attached to the McNeills' answer 
is a 1986 federal district court judgment against the Hirsches and the Hidden 
Oak Trust, which finds that the Hirsches had "conveyed the property to the 
Hidden Oak Trust * * *."

[¶14]   In their briefs, the Hirsches 
assert that they do have an interest in the property because they allegedly 
conveyed the property to the Hidden Oak Trust as "nominee" and not in fee. As 
proof of that allegation they refer to the same 1986 federal district court 
judgment offered by the McNeills as an attachment to their answer, which 
states:

It 
is alleged that Mr. Hirsch and his wife, Jamie L. Hirsch, owned real property at 
920 West 7th Street, Powell, Wyoming, as tenants by the entirety until May 22, 
1978, when they conveyed the property to the Hidden Oak Trust, which is alleged 
to hold the real estate as nominee of Mr. Hirsch. Once the McNeills denied the 
Hirsches' allegation of legal title, it was incumbent upon the Hirsches to prove 
their title. McAlpin v. Smith, 123 Mont. 391, 213 P.2d 602, 603 (1950); 
York v. James, 62 Wyo. 184, 203, 165 P.2d 109, 114-15, 162 A.L.R. 730 
(1946); 65 Am.Jur.2d Quieting Title § 78 (1972); see also Black, 
59 Wyo. at 286, 140 P.2d  at 595 (holding that plaintiff must have title to or 
some interest in the property in order to maintain a quiet title action). The 
allegation by appellants in their brief is not sufficient proof of legal title, 
"color of title," or of any interest the Hirsches allege to hold in the 
property. Based on this record, the Hirsches have utterly failed to prove title 
or any interest in the property. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Hirsches 
cannot quiet title.

CONCLUSION

[¶15]   The Hirsches filed a complaint to 
quiet title and properly alleged possession and title. The McNeills answered in 
part by denying the Hirsches' title and by asserting that the Hirsches had 
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In response, the 
Hirsches filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting affidavits and 
exhibits. However, the affidavits and exhibits contained no evidence of the 
Hirsches' title or an interest in the property at issue. Because it is clear 
upon the record that the Hirsches are without title or an interest in the 
property, as a matter of law they may not maintain an action to quiet title, and 
the district court's summary judgment dismissal was 
correct.

[¶16]   We affirm.