Title: Keabler v. City of Riverton

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Keabler v. City of Riverton1991 WY 37808 P.2d 205Case Number: 90-220Decided: 03/27/1991Supreme Court of Wyoming
Rick 
KEABLER, Bill Thompson, Mark Abraham, Blaine Hoagland, Carolyn Whitman, Kevin 
Lee, Randy Ricard, Brad Locker, Jim Walters, Larry Prince, Ron Saben, Lola 
Saben, Vic Jackovac, Keith Jones, Dan Quincannon, Tami Baldwin, Ernie Acton, 
Earl Hinkle, Charles McCoy, Kenneth Lane, Nancy Spearman and Bob Davis, 
Appellants (Plaintiffs),

v.

CITY 
OFRIVERTON, Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from the District 
Court, FremontCounty, D. Terry Rogers, 
J.

Affirmed.

William L. 
Miller of Miller and Fasse, P.C., Riverton, for 
appellants.

Donald J. 
Keenan, Riverton, for appellee.

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

OPINION

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellants, twenty-two 
employees of Appellee City of Riverton, appeal from an order granting the City's 
motion for summary judgment after holding that the portion of the City's 
personnel policies and procedures providing for employee insurance benefits was 
voidable by the City.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     The employees raise the 
following issue:

     1. The district court 
erred in holding that the employment contract as set forth in the personnel 
polic[ies] and procedures of the Appellee/Defendant, City of Riverton[,] was voidable 
by the Appellee.

 [¶4.]    The parties agreed to the 
following stipulated facts for the purpose of arguing the motion for summary 
judgment:

     1. All the Plaintiffs 
were regular employees of the City of Riverton prior to January 9, 1989 and had 
successfully completed any probationary periods.

     2. During the time the 
Plaintiffs were employees of the City of Riverton, [the] City had in effect personnel 
policies and procedures compiled in 1985 and subsequently amended. A true and 
correct copy of the Personnel Policies and Procedures of the City of Riverton is attached 
hereto as Exhibit "A".

     3. Pursuant to a 
motion passed unanimously by the City Council of the City of Riverton on January 9, 
1989, all medical and dental insurance programs available to employees through 
the City were terminated effective February 9, 1989. A true and accurate copy of 
the minutes of said meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated 
herein by this reference.

     4. The Plaintiffs were 
employed as police officers (10), police dispatchers and clerks (2), water and 
sewer department employees (4), custodians (1), utility maintenance (2), 
equipment operators (1), mechanics (1), and municipal court clerk 
(1).

The policies and 
procedures manual attached to the stipulated facts as Exhibit "A" provided in 
pertinent part:

     The City has available 
for all permanent employees a medical, dental, and life insurance program which 
is based on equal employee/employer contributions.

* * * * * 
*

     The types, amounts, 
and carriers of all insurance coverage provided for employees shall be solely 
determined by the City.

The minutes of the 
January 9, 1989, special meeting of the Riverton City Council, attached as 
Exhibit "B" to the stipulated facts, reveal that the Riverton City Council 
unanimously passed a motion to terminate the self-funded employee insurance 
program because of actuarial unsoundness and excessive and unexpected costs. If 
the City had continued to participate, it would have had to fund an additional 
unbudgeted amount of approximately $117,000 for coverage in 1989. The City chose 
to terminate coverage rather than pay the additional amount. The employees were 
given notice of the City's decision, and the termination of insurance benefits 
became effective February 10, 1989.

[¶5.]     On December 20, 1989, 
the employees commenced a declaratory-judgment and breach-of-contract action, 
praying for the court to declare that the City had a contractual obligation to 
provide the insurance benefits set out in the City's personnel policies and 
procedures manual and praying for damages resulting from the City's failure to 
provide such coverage. The City answered the employees' complaint, generally and 
specifically denying that any contract existed between the parties and asserting 
that the City did not damage the employees and that the employees failed to 
state a claim for which relief could be granted pursuant to the Uniform 
Declaratory Judgments Act. The City moved for a judgment on the pleadings, which 
motion, with the consent of the parties, was converted to a motion for summary 
judgment. On August 8, 1990, the court entered its order granting the motion for 
summary judgment after finding that the portion of the personnel policies and 
procedures manual pertaining to the employees' insurance benefits was voidable 
because it extended beyond the term during which the Riverton City Council 
adopted the manual and was not reasonably necessary or of a definable advantage 
to the City.

[¶6.]     This Court has set 
forth the standards governing appellate review of summary judgments so many 
times that a detailed analysis of or citation to applicable authorities is not 
essential. One such standard is, however, applicable to the determination of 
this appeal. W.R.C.P. 56(e) provides in part:

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 his pleading, but his 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 he does not so respond 
summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against 
him.

[¶7.]     In Mariano & 
Associates, P.C. v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Sublette, 737 P.2d 323, 331-32 (Wyo. 1987), we set forth the test for determining the validity 
of governmental contracts which extend beyond the term of office of the 
governing body:

[A]n agreement extending 
beyond the term of the contracting authority (normally the first Monday of 
odd-numbered years) may be voidable by the government or void upon attack by a 
third party if, under the facts and circumstances, the agreement is not 
reasonably necessary or of a definable advantage to the city or governmental 
body. The issue when raised is decided as a matter of law, and the burden of 
evidence of the actual facts defining convenience and necessity devolve either 
upon the non-governmental contracting party when attacked by the government or 
upon the third party who separately might attack the validity of the 
contract.

For the purpose of 
addressing the employees' issue raised in this appeal, we will assume arguendo 
that the City's personnel policies and procedures manual has the force of a 
contract.

[¶8.]     In an effort to meet 
the Mariano & Associates, P.C. test, the employees' counsel argued that the 
employees held key positions with the City and that the policies and procedures 
adopted by the City promoted a stable work force, which was beneficial in 
carrying out the essential functions of the City's operation. While a secure, 
stable, and fully insured work force is beneficial to the City, the employees 
fall short in presenting a material fact to indicate that providing them with 
insurance was reasonably necessary or of a definable advantage to the City. In 
any event, the mere conclusory statements made by counsel are not competent 
evidence necessary to carry the burden to preclude summary judgment. The 
pleadings, admissions, and stipulated facts of record at the time the motion for 
summary judgment was granted made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of 
material fact existed and that summary judgment should be granted as a matter of 
law.

[¶9.]     We hold that the City 
is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law since the employees failed to 
present any material fact which would demonstrate that it was reasonably 
necessary or of a definable advantage to the City to extend the insurance 
coverage beyond the term of the Riverton City Council which adopted the 
personnel policies and procedures manual providing such 
insurance.

[¶10.]  Affirmed.