Case Title: Amen, Inc. v. Barnard

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Amen, Inc. v. Barnard1997 WY 71938 P.2d 855Case Number: 96-81Decided: 06/06/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

AMEN, INC.; ALTHOFF, INC.; and 
PCM, Incorporated, Wyoming Corporations,

Appellants(Plaintiffs), 

v. 

THOMAS E. BARNARD, 

Appellee(Defendant).

Appeal from the District Court, Park 
County

The Honorable Hunter Patrick, 
Judge

Representing 
Appellants:

Georg Jensen of Law 
Offices of Georg Jensen, Cheyenne, for Appellants.

Representing 
Appellee:

C. Edward Webster, 
II, Cody, for Appellee.

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

TAYLOR, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants, Amen, 
Inc. (Amen) and PCM, Inc. (PCM), filed suit against appellee, Thomas E. Barnard 
(Barnard), seeking to quiet title and for declaratory judgment concerning Amen's 
rights of redemption to property Barnard bought at foreclosure. The district 
court granted summary judgment in favor of Barnard, holding that Amen failed to 
timely redeem the property under the provisions in effect at the time the 
property was mortgaged.

[¶2]      We affirm summary 
judgment and grant Barnard costs and attorney's fees associated with defending 
this appeal.

I. ISSUES

[¶3]      We decline to 
enumerate the issues as phrased by appellants as the issues were either not 
addressed in appellants' brief or supported by cogent argument. The only issue 
on appeal is whether the district court applied the appropriate statutory 
provisions relating to the redemption of agricultural property sold at 
foreclosure. Barnard also requests fees and penalties pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
10.05.

II. FACTS

[¶4]      The relevant 
facts are undisputed. On October 24, 1984, two parcels of land in Park County, 
Wyoming, each exceeding five acres in area, were mortgaged to the First Wyoming 
Bank-Cody (the Bank). The mortgagors of Tract A were Weldon and Marlene Althoff. 
The mortgagor of Tract B was Althoff, Inc., a Wyoming corporation. Due to 
non-payment on the underlying promissory note, the mortgages were foreclosed. At 
the time of foreclosure, PCM, a corporation created and managed by the Althoffs, 
was the title owner of Tract A. At a foreclosure sale on March 17, 1994, both 
tracts were sold as one parcel to Barnard.

[¶5]      The Althoffs 
formed another corporation, Amen, Inc. Amen twice attempted to redeem the 
property sold to Barnard - the first attempt occurring on July 15, 1994. Amen 
sought redemption as a junior lienholder pursuant to an assignment of a 
mechanic's lien for work done on the property at the request of Althoff, Inc. 
and PCM. Although Amen received a Sheriff's Certificate of Redemption at that 
time, the Certificate of Redemption was rescinded a few days later due to legal 
insufficiencies.

[¶6]      No further 
attempts were made to redeem the property until March 17, 1995. This time Amen 
sought redemption as a judgment creditor after securing a judgment on a debt 
owed by PCM.1 Amen was again unsuccessful because 
the redemption was not accomplished within thirty days after the expiration of 
the nine month owner's redemption period.

[¶7]      Amen filed suit 
against Barnard seeking to quiet title and for declaratory judgment concerning 
Amen's rights of redemption to the property. Amen maintained that the owner's 
redemption period was twelve months rather than nine months, and therefore it 
timely applied for redemption as a judgment creditor. Barnard answered and 
counterclaimed for possession. Barnard also sought damages resulting from the 
wrongful actions of Amen while in possession of the property. The district court 
issued a decision letter on January 23, 1996 granting summary judgment in favor 
of Barnard as to all issues. The final judgment incorporating the decision 
letter was entered on February 14, 1996, and appellants timely filed this 
appeal.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8]      When reviewing a 
summary judgment, we first consider whether or not there is a genuine issue of 
material fact underlying the granting of summary judgment; if there is not an 
issue of material fact, we then decide whether the substantive law was correctly 
applied by the trial court. J Bar H, Inc. v. Martin, 872 P.2d 1174, 1176 
(Wyo. 1994) (citing Sutherland v. Bock, 688 P.2d 157, 158 (Wyo. 1984)). 

IV. DISCUSSION

[¶9]      The only issue on 
appeal is whether the district court properly applied the correct statutory 
provisions relating to redemption of agricultural property sold at foreclosure. 
The district court found that the redemption provisions in effect at the time 
the 1984 mortgage was executed should apply. Amen argues that only portions of 
the 1984 provisions are applicable, and contends that the lengthier redemption 
period in effect at the time of the 1994 foreclosure should govern Amen's right 
to redeem.

[¶10]   In 1984, when the Althoffs and 
Althoff, Inc. mortgaged the property to the Bank, rights of redemption were 
governed by Wyo. Stat. § 1-18-103 (Cum.Supp. 1985). That statute provided that 
agricultural land, defined as more than five acres, sold at a foreclosure sale 
may be redeemed by the owner "nine (9) months from the date of the sale or until 
November 1 of the year in which the sale was made, whichever period is greater." 
Wyo. Stat. § 1-18-103(b).

[¶11]   Between the time of the mortgage 
and the time of the foreclosure sale, however, the Wyoming State Legislature 
revised both the definition of agricultural land and the time period for 
redemption. Revisions to Wyo. Stat. § 1-18-103(b) redefined agricultural 
property as a parcel of more than twenty acres. The revisions also extended the 
owner's redemption period to twelve months after the foreclosure 
sale.

[¶12]   The import of this time period to 
Amen is that its rights to redeem as a lienholder or judgment creditor begins on 
the day the owner's redemption rights expire and continue for thirty days 
thereafter. Wyo. Stat. § 1-18-104(a) (1988), which has remained unchanged 
throughout the time relevant to this case, provides:

(a) If no 
redemption is made within the redemption period provided in W.S. 1-18-103, any 
judgment creditor of the person whose real estate has been sold, or any grantee 
or mortgagee of the real estate or person holding a lien on the real estate sold 
is entitled to redeem the same on or before the thirtieth day after the 
expiration of the applicable redemption period provided in W.S. 1-18-103, by 
complying with subsections (b) and (c) of this section.

Thus, in 1984, the owners of the property 
sold to Barnard on March 17, 1994 could have redeemed the property until 
December 18, 1994. It follows that Amen, as a judgment creditor, could redeem 
the property from December 18 through January 17, 1995. If the later statutory 
provisions are applied, the owners' rights of redemption expired on March 17, 
1995, the date Amen attempted to redeem as a judgment 
creditor.

[¶13]   The district court did not err when 
it applied the law in effect at the time the mortgage was executed. We have 
recognized that "statutory provisions become a part of the bargain contemplated 
by the parties in Wyoming as though the statute actually were included in the 
terms." Century Ready-Mix Co. v. Lower & Co., 770 P.2d 692, 696 (Wyo. 1989). 
This is because "[p]eople rely on the stability of the law when ordering their 
affairs." Hill v. Mayall, 886 P.2d 1188, 1191 (Wyo. 1994). A contract is 
therefore governed by the laws in effect at the time the agreement is executed. 
Id. Amen's redemption rights as a judgment creditor arose nine months after the 
foreclosure sale and continued for thirty days. Amen failed to redeem the 
property during that time.

[¶14]   Throughout this case, appellants 
agreed that portions of the law in effect at the time the mortgage was 
executed should be applied. Appellants insist that the 1984 definition of 
"agricultural land" must be applied to their claim.2 Even so, they decline to offer any 
cogent argument or case law to support their contention that the 1984 redemption 
period requires a different result. Indeed, in their brief before this court, 
appellants argue the opposite:

The change in the 
statute should not affect the rights of redemption as to agricultural property 
as the change in definition of agricultural property took place after the 
mortgages were executed. * * * The district court reaches a further conclusion 
that the time period allowed for redemption should be limited to the 9 months 
provided under the [same] statute. The district court misinterpreted Wyoming 
Constitutional law in reaching such conclusion. The rights of the mortgagors 
should be determined in the light of the law as it existed in 1984. The 
legislature may not provide for retroactive legislation which would destroy 
obligations or interfere with vested rights.

We agree that "[t]he rights of the 
mortgagors should be determined in light of the law as it existed in 1984." 
Therefore, the district court properly applied the statute and this appeal is 
without merit.

[¶15]   Barnard requests that we enter 
sanctions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05. Generally, we are reluctant to grant 
sanctions and will do so only in those rare circumstances where an appeal lacks 
cogent argument, where there is an absence of pertinent authority to support the 
claims of error, and/or when there is a failure to adequately cite to the 
record. Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960, 965 (Wyo. 1996); Phifer v. 
Phifer, 845 P.2d 384, 387 (Wyo. 1993). In this case, appellants' failure to 
comply with any one of these standards leads inevitably to the conclusion that 
there is no reasonable cause for the filing of this appeal. Cotton v. 
Brow, 903 P.2d 530, 532 (Wyo. 1995). We therefore grant Barnard's request 
for costs and attorney's fees in defending this appeal. Barnard shall submit a 
statement of costs and attorney's fees to this court; and, upon review, an 
appropriate award of costs and fees will be ordered by this 
court.

V. CONCLUSION

[¶16]   Summary judgment in favor of 
Barnard is affirmed. Appellants shall reimburse costs and attorney's fees 
engendered in the defense of this appeal.

Footnotes

1 Two weeks earlier, on March 3, the 
Althoffs, in their capacity as officers and directors of Amen, sued PCM. On the 
same day, the Althoffs, as the officers and directors of PCM, accepted service 
and confessed judgment. As described by the district court, "[t]he Complaint * * 
* essentially alleges that they owed money to themselves, plus interest * * *, 
that they demanded payment from themselves and failed and refused to pay * * * 
and consequently as of the date the Complaint was filed, * * * they owed 
themselves the sum of $20,904.00."

2 In order to fall within the twelve 
month redemption period, the parcel must be agricultural land. If the current 
statutory definition of more than twenty acres were applied to the parcels 
mortgaged by PCM and Althoff, Inc., only one of the parcels would fall within 
the twelve month redemption period. The other parcel would fall within a three 
month owner's redemption period, with Amen required to redeem thirty days 
thereafter.