Title: Forbis v. Minter

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Forbis v. Minter1994 WY 18869 P.2d 151Case Number: 93-118Decided: 02/18/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Clyde 
C. FORBIS,

 Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

C. 
Jack MINTER d/b/a Minter Realtors; C. Jack Minter, individually; and 

Wind 
River Realty, Inc., a Wyoming corporation,

 Appellees 
(Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court, Fremont County, Elizabeth A. Kail, 
J.

Representing 
Appellant:

John 
R. Hursh, Cent. WY Law Assoc., P.C., Riverton, 

Representing 
Appellees:

Mark 
White of White & White, P.C., Riverton, Mark L. Carman, Williams, Porter, 
Day & Neville, P.C., Casper.

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

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]     In this we appeal we 
consider whether the district court was correct in granting summary judgment. 
Appellant Clyde C. Forbis offered his home for sale. Appellees C. Jack Minter, 
d/b/a Minter Realtors (Minter) and Wind River Realty, Inc., were the agents who 
procured a sale. Forbis contended they were negligent and breached their 
fiduciary duties to him by enabling a buyer to be released from his contract to 
buy.

[¶2]     We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]     Forbis raises these 
issues:

1. 
Did the District Court err in finding there did not exist a question of material 
fact as regards the Appellant/Plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of 
fiduciary duty against Appellee/Defendant, C. Jack Minter, d/b/a Minter 
Realtors, Inc., and C. Jack Minter, individually; and

2. 
Did the District Court err in finding there did not exist a question of material 
fact as regards the Appellant/Plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of 
fiduciary duty against Appellee/Defendant, Wind River Realty, 
Inc.

            
Minter provides this response:

Whether 
the district court correctly decided that there did not exist a question of 
material fact and that defendants, C. Jack Minter d/b/a Minter Realtors, Inc.; 
C. Jack Minter, individually; and Wind River Realty, Inc., were entitled to 
summary judgment as a matter of law?

            
Wind River Realty states this issue:

Was 
the trial court correct in finding that the record did not present a question of 
material fact regarding Appellant's allegations regarding Appellee Wind River 
Realty, Inc.?

FACTS

[¶4]     In August 1989, Forbis 
listed a home for sale with Minter. Minter, in turn, placed that property on the 
local multi-list. Wind River Realty procured a buyer on December 12, 1989, and a 
contract for sale was duly executed. The buyer had visited the premises at least 
twice before the contract for sale was signed and three times after the contract 
was signed. After the contract for sale was signed, Forbis revealed to the buyer 
that there was a crack in the foundation of the home. Sometime in January 1990, 
the buyer went to the home and viewed the crack himself; he then took a friend 
knowledgeable about concrete work out to inspect the crack. The friend told the 
buyer the crack could be repaired, and the buyer made a determination at that 
time that he would make the repair himself. Closing was scheduled for January 
30, 1990, and, pursuant to a side agreement, the buyer moved into the home on 
January 28, 1990.

[¶5]     The buyer became 
alarmed about apparent structural problems during the two days preceding the 
scheduled closing, saying the house had been making "cracking and groaning" 
noises. In addition, on the morning of the date scheduled for closing, the buyer 
discovered that "the kitchen floor was approximately one inch off level on a 
four-foot span. And that the bottom south wall was approximately kicked out one 
inch per four foot on the vertical wall." The buyer then called Wind River 
Realty and an agent came out to see the house. That agent noted there was a 
problem with the house. Wind River prepared an extension agreement to post-pone 
the closing from January 30, 1990, until February 2, 1990, so that the buyer 
could arrange for an inspection. Wind River advised the buyer of an inspector he 
might employ. Section X of the Contract for Sale was a detailed inspection 
provision, but it had been left blank. Forbis signed the extension agreement, 
but claims not to have understood what the purport of it 
was.

[¶6]     The buyer arranged for 
an informal inspection of the property and, although no report of the inspection 
was prepared, the buyer became inflexible in his resolve to back out of the 
contract to buy the home. The buyer prepared a letter stating his intention not 
to buy; the letter was typed up for the buyer by Wind River and delivered to 
Minter. Forbis was informed of the buyer's repudiation, and he told Minter "that 
he should not cancel the sale and that he should not return the earnest money, 
that as far as I was concerned the contract was in effect. And in other words, I 
rejected the letter." Minter claimed Forbis had given him permission to cancel 
the contract, and a document to that effect was executed by Minter on Forbis's 
behalf. The buyer did not immediately accept that release, but eventually Forbis 
did release the buyer from his contract.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]     Summary judgment is 
appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist and we review a 
summary judgment in "the same light as the trial court, using the same materials 
and following the same standards." Moncrief v. Louisiana Land & 
Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516, 523 (Wyo. 1993) (citing and quoting 
Allmaras v. Mudge, 820 P.2d 533, 535 (Wyo. 1991)).

[¶8]     Forbis contends there 
are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. He argues 
that there is a dispute as to whether he was informed of the import of the 
extension agreement he signed, as well as whether he specifically instructed 
Minter not to release the buyer from his contract. He also maintains that both 
Minter and Wind River Realty violated their fiduciary obligations to him by not 
loyally looking out for his interests and, in fact, assisting the buyer in 
getting relieved from the onus of his contract. We agree with the district court 
that even accepting that Minter and Wind River failed Forbis in some respects, 
the cause of the damages he alleged were not the result of Minter's or Wind 
River's failings, but rather because the buyer became inflexible in his resolve 
not to go through with the contract. There is no suggestion in the facts relied 
upon by Forbis that either Minter or Wind River Realty were other than honest, 
trustworthy and competent in their dealings with him. They cannot be held 
responsible for a buyer's personal and uncounseled decision to breach, repudiate 
or rescind a contract. Erickson v. Magill, 713 P.2d 1182, 1186-87 (Wyo. 
1986).

[¶9]     The summary judgment is 
affirmed.