Case Title: PETER B. STEIGER and SYLVIA STEIGER V. HAPPY VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
PETER B. STEIGER and SYLVIA STEIGER V. HAPPY VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION2007 WY 5149 P.3d 735Case Number: 05-110Decided: 01/16/2007
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
PETER B. 
STEIGER and SYLVIA STEIGER,

 
 
Appellants

(Defendants),

 
 
v.

 
 
HAPPY 
VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from theDistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Peter B. 
Steiger and Sylvia Steiger, Pro 
se

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

William 
D. Bagley of Bagley, Karpan, White, Rose LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL,* KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 
* Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Peter and Sylvia 
Steiger are husband and wife and own a tract in HappyValley 
subdivision near Cheyenne where they reside.  The Happy Valley Homeowners Association 
(HoA) claim the Steigers are in violation of a protective covenant and brought 
the instant action to enforce the covenant.  The district court granted summary 
judgment to the HoA.  We 
reverse.

 
 
[¶2]      The Steigers 
bring four issues to this Court on appeal, but only one needs to be 
addressed.  The Steigers argue that 
the HoA was not entitled to summary judgment because of their unresolved 
allegation that the instant legal action against them was never duly authorized 
by the HoA.  In essence, the 
Steigers alleged that the HoA lacked capacity to bring and maintain the instant 
suit and therefore have not presented a prima facie case.  Under the peculiar facts of this case, 
we find we must agree.

 
 
[¶3]      The Steigers 
properly alleged below that the instant legal action against them was never duly 
authorized by the HoA.  During the 
course of the proceedings, the Steigers served a request for admissions upon the 
HoA.  The HoA did not serve a 
response to the request within the thirty-day time limit established by W.R.C.P. 
36, thereby admitting all matters asserted in the request.1 Among the admissions were 
admissions generally establishing that the Board of the HoA was not legally 
constituted and a specific admission that "any and all actions taken on behalf 
of the Association at any meeting of the alleged Board of Directors later than 
August 7, 2003, are invalid and do not represent true actions or commitments of 
the Association" (the instant suit was filed June 25, 2004).   

 
 
[¶4]      Our review of the 
record reveals no motion by the HoA for withdrawal or amendment of the 
admissions, nor is there any order allowing the same.  As the record stands, therefore, the HoA 
has admitted, and it is therefore conclusively established, that any action the 
Board might have taken to authorize this suit was invalid.2  Without proper authorization, the HoA 
lacked capacity to prosecute the instant suit.  Unfortunately, this lack of capacity is 
an insurmountable objection to summary judgment.  

 
 
[¶5]      It was error to 
grant summary judgment to the HoA in an action it has admitted it is not 
authorized to bring or maintain.  We 
reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1W.R.C.P. 36 
states in pertinent part:

 
 
(a) Request for admission. -- A party may 
serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of 
the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 
26(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or 
of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents 
described in the request. . . .

 
 
            
. . . The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the 
request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party 
to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a 
written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by 
the party's attorney . . . .

 
 
            
* * * *

 
 
(b) Effect of admission. -- Any matter 
admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion 
permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.

  

2Even had the HoA been 
relieved of its admissions in this regard, in order to prevail the HoA still 
must demonstrate that it has a right to an injunction against the Steigers.  In other words, once properly challenged 
the HoA has the burden of proof on the issue of capacity.  See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main 
Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262-63 (D. Cal. 1987).  The HoA submitted no 
evidence of authorization.