Title: BARBARA J. LASEN and PAUL S. LASEN, wife and husband V. SAMUEL L. ANDERSON, Deceased; TRICIA L. ROHLOFF; and LEE C. ANDERSON and FIRST NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE OF THE ANDERSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST NO. 1 DATED AUGUST 14, 1997

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BARBARA J. LASEN and PAUL S. LASEN, wife and husband V. SAMUEL L. ANDERSON, Deceased; TRICIA L. ROHLOFF; and LEE C. ANDERSON and FIRST NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE OF THE ANDERSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST NO. 1 DATED AUGUST 14, 19972008 WY 80187 P.3d 857Case Number: S-07-0138Decided: 07/14/2008
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
BARBARA 
J. LASEN and PAUL S. LASEN, wife and 
husband,Appellants(Plaintiffs),v.SAMUEL L. ANDERSON, 
Deceased; TRICIA L. ROHLOFF; and LEE C. 
ANDERSON,Appellees(Defendants),andFIRST NATIONAL 
BANK, TRUSTEE OF THE ANDERSON FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST NO. 1 DATED AUGUST 14, 
1997,Appellee(Intervenor).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofGoshenCounty

The 
Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

Jerry M. 
Smith of Torrington, 
Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Howard 
P. Olsen Jr. of Simmons Olsen Law Firm, PC, Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

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

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellants 
Barbara J. Lasen and Paul S. Lasen (Lasens) challenge the district court's order 
denying their complaint to quiet title to a GoshenCounty farm owned by Barbara's late 
father.

 
 
[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      The Lasens state 
their issues as follows:

 
 

1.                                     
A 
general issue for review is: "Are the findings of the District Court clearly 
erroneous as a matter of law and unsupported by the 
evidence?"

2.                                     
Did the 
District Court err in determining that the Plaintiffs exercised undue influence 
to gain execution of the 1998 Deed to the GoshenCounty property?

3.                                     
Did the 
District Court err in determining the 1995 Deed was properly 
delivered?

4.                                     
Did the 
District Court err by not considering whether Defendants had unclean 
hands?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Robert Anderson 
was the father of Barbara (Anderson) Lasen and Samuel L. Anderson.  Samuel predeceased his father, dying in 
April of 1998.  Robert passed away 
in February of 2003 after living most of his adult life in Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

 
 
[¶5]      Prior to both men 
passing, Robert executed a deed in 1995 conveying a farm in Goshen County, Wyoming, to 
his children, Barbara and Samuel.1  This deed was executed in the law office 
of a Nebraska 
attorney, who also notarized Robert's signature.  Escrow instructions were also included 
by way of letter to Paul Lasen, requesting Paul Lasen to hold the deed until 
Robert's death, after which the deed should be delivered to Robert's children.2

 
 
[¶6]      After Samuel 
died, Robert executed another deed on July 2, 1998, conveying the same 
GoshenCounty farm to Barbara and 
her husband Paul (the Lasens).  
Disputing the validity of the new deed, in May of 1999 Samuel's children 
Tricia Rohloff and Lee Anderson filed a Notice of Execution and Delivery of Warranty 
Deed with the Goshen County Clerk asserting an interest in the farm based on 
the first deed executed in 1995.  
After Robert died, the 1998 deed was recorded on March 3, 2003, by the 
Lasens.  And although the Lasens' 
complaint to quiet title asserted their rights to the Goshen County farm based 
upon the 1998 deed, Samuel's children argued that the 1995 deed was executed, 
delivered, accepted, and irrevocable  giving no effect to the 1998 deed.  Samuel's children further asserted that 
their grandfather Robert was not competent to execute the 1998 deed, and that 
the 1998 deed was procured through undue influence on Robert by the 
Lasens.

 
 
[¶7]      The relationship 
between Robert and the Lasens was complicated at best.  When he died in 2003, Robert was in his 
late 80's, and there was evidence that Robert's already deteriorating mental 
condition had accelerated.3  In fact, even as early as March 5, 1998, 
Robert's physician noted some progressive memory problems, and there is some 
indication that Robert had at least been prescribed Aricept, a medication 
commonly given to patients with Alzheimer's disease.

 
 
[¶8]      As mentioned 
above, Samuel died unexpectedly in 1998.  
Family members converged on Fort 
Collins, Colorado, for 
the funeral on April 25, 1998.  
Those family members included the Lasens, who were multi-tasking, 
grieving the loss of Samuel and making arrangements to have Robert change his 
will.4  
In fact, the very day before Samuel's funeral, the Lasens took Robert to 
an attorney in Scottsbluff, 
Nebraska, and scheduled an 
appointment for two days after the funeral.  As a result of that meeting, the 
Nebraska 
attorney prepared a power-of-attorney for Robert appointing the Lasens as his 
attorneys-in-fact.  Robert was to 
execute the new will the next day (April 28, 1998  the same day the Lasens 
returned to their home in Memphis).  
The Nebraska attorney discovered a conflict, and 
referred the Lasens and Robert to Roy Hahn, another local attorney in 
Scottsbluff.  Within days, the 
Lasens flew back from Memphis and accompanied Robert to Hahn's 
office.  As a result of that 
meeting, Hahn prepared a new will that gave Samuel's two children $10,000.00 
each.  The new will also provided a 
gift to the Henry, Nebraska Methodist church.  The balance of Robert's estate, which 
totaled over $1,000,000.00, went to Barbara Lasen, with a provision that if 
Barbara predeceased Robert, then Robert's estate would go to Paul 
Lasen.

 
 
[¶9]      On July 1, 1998, 
Barbara Lasen took Robert to visit his physician, where she expressed concerns 
about his deteriorating mental condition.  
However, the very next day, Barbara took Robert back to attorney Hahn, 
and the April will was revised to reflect that Barbara's children would also 
receive gifts of $10,000.00 each.  
The revised will maintained that the residuary estate would go to 
Barbara, and in the event of her early demise, then to Paul Lasen.  That same day, Robert also executed two 
deeds conveying the GoshenCounty farm and an Arizona property solely 
to the Lasens.   These new 
deeds were prepared by Paul Lasen, who stated at trial that he prepared the new 
documents at the request of Robert.  
At issue in this case is the validity of the 1995 and 1998 deeds 
conveying the GoshenCounty farm.

 
 
[¶10]   As noted by the district court in 
its decision letter, there are several other matters of importance worth 
noting.  After Samuel died in 1998, 
his children were suspicious that the Lasens were illegally taking Robert's 
money, and they filed a petition for the appointment of the Platte Valley 
National Bank as conservator for Robert's estate.  The Lasens contested the petition 
alleging that a conservator was unnecessary because they already had 
power-of-attorney to manage Robert's affairs or, in the alternative, the Lasens 
requested that they be appointed 
conservators.  After a trial, the 
bank was appointed conservator.  The 
Lasens appealed the decision of the Nebraska 
court, which was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in In re: Conservatorship of Anderson, 628 N.W.2d 233, 240 (Neb. 2001).

 
 
[¶11]   In spite of the appointment of the 
bank as conservator, the Lasens continued to spend Robert's money for their own 
use.  Specifically, they used 
$20,000.00 to purchase a Lexus automobile, and $75,000.00 to purchase an 
airplane.  In addition, the Lasens 
recorded the deed conveying the Arizona property from Robert to themselves and 
immediately sold the property for $65,000.  
The Platte Valley National Bank as conservator filed suit against the 
Lasens seeking recovery of over $300,000.

 
 
[¶12]   Also of note, following Robert's 
death, there was a will contest between the Lasens on one side and Samuel's 
children, Lee Anderson and Tricia Rohloff, on the other.  Robert's will, executed on August 29, 
1997, had been admitted into probate in Nebraska.  The other two wills executed in 1998 
were found by a jury in Scottsbluff 
County, Nebraska, to be 
invalid because of undue influence exerted by the Lasens on Robert.5

 
 
[¶13]   On July 11, 2005, the Lasens filed 
the complaint at issue in the instant case, asking the district court to quiet 
title in the GoshenCounty farm owned by Robert before he 
passed away.  Named as defendants in 
the complaint, Tricia Rohloff and Lee Anderson responded and alleged numerous 
affirmative defenses.  On March 21, 
2006, First National Bank of Fort Collins, 
Colorado, as Trustee of the Anderson Family 
Irrevocable Trust No. 1 dated August 14, 1997, intervened as an additional 
defendant, claiming an interest in the GoshenCounty farm on behalf of the estate of 
Samuel Anderson.  After a bench 
trial, the district court entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs' Complaint to Quiet 
Title and Granting Intervenor's Counterclaim to Quiet 
Title.

 
 
[¶14]   This appeal seeks to overturn the 
district court's decision.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

 

[¶15]   When a matter has been tried before 
the district court without a jury, the Supreme Court's review of the district 
court's findings of 
fact is conducted under the clearly 
erroneous standard, but conclusions of law are reviewed de 
novo.  Kimble v. Ellis, 
2004 WY 161, ¶ 7, 101 P.3d 950, 953 (Wyo. 2004).  A finding is clearly 
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the 
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm 
conviction that a mistake has been committed.  Nickle v. Board of County Com'rs of 
Platte County, 2007 WY 115, ¶ 16, 162 P.3d 1208, 1213 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶16]   The Lasens argue generally that the 
district court's findings are not supported by the evidence presented at 
trial.  More specifically, the 
Lasens contend that the lower court erred first in finding that the Lasens 
exerted undue influence over Robert Anderson, in determining that the 1995 deed 
was delivered and, finally, in not considering the issue of "unclean hands" at 
trial.  Unfortunately for the 
Lasens, no transcripts were designated in the record on appeal.  It is an appellant's burden to bring an 
appellate court a complete record upon which to base a decision.  Everitts v. Ininns, 2008 WY 41, 
¶ 14, 180 P.3d 919, 925 (Wyo. 2008). This rule requires this Court to assume 
that the transcript 
of a hearing would support the district court's resolution of the case.  We proceed 
accordingly.

 
 
Undue 
Influence

 
 
[¶17]   First, we consider the Lasens' 
undue influence claim.  The Lasens 
insist that a careful review of the record will reflect no undue influence 
exerted by them over Robert Anderson.  
In direct contrast, the Appellees maintain that the district court was 
correct when it concluded not only that undue influence was present, but was 
applied in an "embarrassingly and shamelessly perfidious" 
manner.

 
 
[¶18]   Coming to the conclusion that it 
did, the district court considered that in order to prevail on a claim of undue 
influence, the following must be proven: 1) opportunity to control; 2) a 
condition permitting subversion; and 3) activity on the part of the person 
charged.  See Estate of Short v. Hall, 785 P.2d 1167, 
1170 (Wyo. 
1990).  To support its conclusions, 
the district court noted that:

 
 
Even 
before Samuel Anderson's funeral, the Lasens were making appointments with 
attorneys to assure that Robert Anderson's will was changed.  The substantive changes to that will all 
but disinherited Samuel Anderson's children, gave most of the estate to Barbara 
Lasen, and ultimately Paul Lasen if he survived Barbara.

 
 
The 
court also declared it "apparent" that by 1998, Robert's mental health was 
"seriously compromised," noting that one day Barbara took her father to the 
doctor to discuss his deteriorating mental status, and the very next day took 
him to an attorney to execute a new will and a new deed to the Goshen County 
farm, which deed was prepared by Mr. Lasen.

 
 
[¶19]   The district court's findings do 
not stop there.  The court observes 
in its decision letter that the Lasens took Robert to a nursing home with orders 
to not resuscitate him in the event of an emergency.  Also, in violation of a court-ordered 
conservatorship, the Lasens used their power-of-attorney to transfer large sums 
of money from Robert to themselves, to buy a car and an airplane, and to sell 
Robert's Arizona townhouse for their own profit.  The court also notes a tape-recorded 
conversation played at trial where Robert "was clearly not tracking well," and 
that such conversation was "instructive."  
The court stated: "The conversation is, frankly, disgraceful and 
represents an obvious attempt to manipulate Robert 
Anderson."

 
 
[¶20]   In conclusion, the district court 
stated:

 
 
The 
Lasens clearly had an opportunity to control Robert Anderson.  The activities of the Lasens after 
Samuel Anderson's death were continually directed towards causing Robert 
Anderson to change his will, his power-of-attorney, and the deed in 
question.

The 
Lasens were with Robert Anderson when all such changes occurred.  Specifically, they made appointments 
with lawyers to aid in that purpose and Mr. Lasen even rewrote the 1998 deed to 
the Goshen County Farm himself.

The 
evidence is clear and convincing that the Lasens abused their confidential 
relationship with Robert Anderson to gain a [SIC] control over his 
assets.

This 
Court does conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the Lasens exercised 
undue influence on Robert Anderson to gain execution of the 1998 deed to the 
GoshenCounty 
property.

 
 
[¶21]   Upon review, the facts in the 
instant case amount to one of the clearest cases of undue influence we have 
seen.  We see no facts to the 
contrary, and affirm the district court.

 
 
Delivery 
of the Deed

 
 
[¶22]   Next, we address whether or not the 
district court erred in determining that the 1995 deed was properly 
delivered.  The Lasens argue that 
the 1995 deed was never actually delivered because it was found in Samuel 
Anderson's personal papers after he died.  
Apparently, after Robert executed the deed in 1995, bestowing the 
GoshenCounty farm to Barbara and 
Samuel, Robert directed the deed, along with a letter placing it in escrow, to 
be held by Paul Lasen until Robert's death.  However, for whatever reason, Paul Lasen 
refused to keep the deed and letter, and it ended up with Samuel Anderson, and 
eventually, his attorney Mayo Sommermeyer.  
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way the deed and letter were misplaced 
by Mr. Sommermeyer.

 
 
[¶23]   The main issue is whether or not 
there was delivery and acceptance of the 1995 deed so as to effect an 
irrevocable transfer.  To effect a 
conveyance transferring title, a deed must be both executed and delivered.  Lenhart v. Desmond, 705 P.2d 338, 342 
(Wyo. 1985).  
At the time of the delivery the grantor's intent is of primary and 
controlling importance.  Id.

 
 
[¶24]   The Lasens argue that the deed was 
never delivered as Robert instructed and that there is a "total lack of evidence 
of delivery."  We must disagree with 
the Lasens.  Undeniably, the deed 
was accepted by Samuel for filing upon his father's death.  And, as the district court points out, 
the Lasens were "ready and willing to accept any and all of Robert Anderson's 
assets at any time."  We could not 
agree more.  The district court 
found a "clear, irrevocable transfer" of the GoshenCounty property by Robert Anderson.  We agree, and only reiterate the lower 
court in saying that the fact that a second deed was written and executed by the 
Lasens in 1998 does not obviate the first deed that was both executed and delivered.

 
 
Unclean 
Hands

 
 
[¶25]   Finally, the Lasens argue that 
Samuel Anderson's children come before this Court with unclean hands, alleging 
first that Samuel's children refused to give Robert his papers, files, and other 
property when requested, and second that Samuel embezzled funds from another 
trust, and from Barbara Lasen, and that the existence of the 1995 deed and 
escrow letter was concealed throughout the legal proceedings.  This argument fails on appeal as it 
appears to be a "red herring" argument made by the Lasens in a last ditch effort 
to resurrect this case in their favor.  
Furthermore, the Lasens have failed to support what argument they make 
with citation to or analysis of pertinent legal authority.  Without fail, we 
do not consider arguments not supported by citation to relevant legal 
authority.  Cathcart v. 
Meyer, 2004 WY 49, ¶ 20, 88 P.3d 1050, 1060 (Wyo. 2004).  We decline to consider the Lasens' final 
argument and affirm the district court's order denying plaintiffs' complaint to 
quiet title and granting intervenor's counterclaim to quiet 
title.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶26]   The district court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Complaint to Quiet 
Title and Granting Intervenor's Counterclaim to Quiet Title is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1At the same 
time Robert executed the GoshenCounty farm deed, he also executed 
another deed conveying property in Arizona to Barbara and 
Samuel.

 
 

2The district 
court found that although Mr. Lasen was aware of the 1995 deed and escrow 
instructions, he did not hold the documents in escrow.  As a result, Samuel held them for 
safekeeping.  After Samuel's death, 
Tricia Rohloff found the documents and delivered them to an attorney in 
Fort Collins, Colorado, who was handling Samuel's 
estate.  Unfortunately, these 
documents have been "misplaced and/or lost" by another attorney and have never 
been found, although copies of the documents were introduced as evidence in the 
trial on the instant case.

 
 

3At trial, 
there was apparently evidence to the effect that Robert would lock himself out 
of his home repeatedly, give already-negotiated checks to his church as a 
donation, and drive his power mower without engaging the 
blade.

 
 

4Prior to 
Samuel's death, he and Barbara were to share equally in Robert's estate, and if 
they did not survive, their heirs were to inherit their respective 
shares.

 
 

5This matter 
is being appealed by the Lasens to the Nebraska Supreme 
Court.