Title: JANEEN L. CAPSHAW, TRUSTEE FOR JANEEN L. CAPSHAW-KING REVOCABLE TRUST V. JOY L. OSBON, Successor Trustee of the Zelda Corbett Revocable Trust dated the 3rd day of November, 1993, as amended and MATHEW TODD CORBETT

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JANEEN L. CAPSHAW, TRUSTEE FOR JANEEN L. CAPSHAW-KING REVOCABLE TRUST V. JOY L. OSBON, Successor Trustee of the Zelda Corbett Revocable Trust dated the 3rd day of November, 1993, as amended and MATHEW TODD CORBETT2008 WY 95190 P.3d 156Case Number: S-07-0228Decided: 08/15/2008
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
JANEEN 
L. CAPSHAW, TRUSTEE FOR JANEEN L. CAPSHAW-KING REVOCABLE 
TRUST,Appellant(Intervenor),v.JOY L. OSBON, 
Successor Trustee of the Zelda Corbett Revocable Trust dated the 3rd day of 
November, 1993, as amended,Appellee(Plaintiff),and 
MATHEW TODD 
CORBETT,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofWashakieCounty

The 
Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Billie 
L.M. Addleman and Gary R. Scott of Hirst & Applegate, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee Joy L. Osbon:

Mary 
Helen Reed of McCarty and Reed, Attorneys at Law, L.C., Cody, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee Mathew Todd Corbett:

John 
P. Worrall of Worall & Greear, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.  

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The appellant, 
Janeen L. Capshaw, Trustee for the Janeen L. Capshaw-King Revocable Trust 
(Capshaw), entered into a contract to purchase a large portion of real estate 
held by the Zelda Corbett Revocable Trust (the Corbett Trust).  The appellee, Mathew Todd Corbett 
(Corbett), one of the beneficiaries of the Corbett Trust, joined with a number 
of the other beneficiaries in objecting to the sale to Capshaw.  Joy L. Osbon, Trustee for the Corbett 
Trust (Trustee), filed a declaratory judgment action requesting approval of the 
sale.  Capshaw, who was not 
originally named in the declaratory judgment action, filed a motion to intervene 
and her motion was granted.  The 
district court ordered that the property be sold to Corbett.  We remand for a new 
hearing.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶2]      In November 2006, 
Corbett expressed a desire to purchase a large portion of the real property held 
by the Corbett Trust.  He contacted 
Trustee to discuss and negotiate the terms of the purchase.  Although the estimated value of the 
property was between $600,000 and $700,000, Corbett offered to purchase the 
property for $450,000.  Trustee 
contacted the beneficiaries to gauge their interest in selling the property to 
Corbett.  Seven of the nine 
beneficiaries responded, and of those seven, only one indicated that she would 
be willing to sell the land to Corbett for $450,000

 
 
[¶3]      In January 2007, 
in an effort to more accurately assess the market value of the property, Trustee 
sought a real estate evaluation.  
Based on a comparative market analysis, the property was estimated to be 
valued at $910,917.00.  On January 
8, Trustee listed the property for sale with a local realtor.  Although the property was formally 
listed, it was not actively marketed pending another offer from Corbett.  

 
 
[¶4]      On March 20, 
2007, Corbett, through counsel, again proposed to purchase the property.  Corbett's offer involved distributions 
in-kind to the beneficiaries and other terms.  Trustee, through her attorney, rejected 
this offer explaining that it was inconsistent with the terms of the trust and 
that, in her opinion, Corbett's offer did not maximize the return to the 
beneficiaries.  Trustee encouraged 
Corbett to consider a cash offer and informed him that the realtor would begin 
actively marketing the property on April 23, 2007.

 
 
[¶5]      On April 27, 
2007, the Corbett Trust received a full-price offer from the Janeen L. 
Capshaw-King Revocable Trust to purchase the property for $910,000.00.  Trustee notified all of the Corbett 
Trust beneficiaries of the offer and requested that they respond with any 
concerns within five days, or no later than May 7, 2007, which was the day the 
offer expired.  A number of the 
beneficiaries expressed a desire that Trustee meet with Corbett before accepting 
the offer.  Trustee and Corbett had 
scheduled a meeting for May 14, 2007, and Trustee requested that they move this 
meeting up so that they could discuss the offer before it expired.  Corbett requested that Trustee ask 
Capshaw for an extension, which she did and which extension was denied.  Unable to secure an extension, Trustee 
made a counteroffer, which provided, among other things, that the sale would be 
contingent on approval by the district court.  Capshaw accepted the counteroffer on May 
11, 2007.

 
 
[¶6]      On June 8, 2007, 
Trustee filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for Approval of 
Sale of Real Property.  Corbett 
filed an Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Request for Denial for 
[sic] Approval of Sale of Real Property on July 17, 2007.  Not all other beneficiaries answered, 
but those who did requested that the property be sold to Corbett pursuant to a 
family agreement.

 
 
[¶7]      A hearing was 
held on August 10, 2007.  At that 
hearing, Corbett presented a document entitled Corbett Family Agreement.  This document was signed by all but one 
of the beneficiaries.  Under the 
terms of the agreement, Corbett would purchase the property and certain 
beneficiaries would receive a promissory note and others would receive less 
consideration than his or her share of the full purchase price.  The court ruled from the bench that the 
petition for approval of the sale to Capshaw be denied and ordered that the 
property be sold to Corbett pursuant to the Corbett Family 
Agreement.

 
 
[¶8]      On August 27, 
2007, prior to entry of a formal order, Capshaw filed a Motion to Intervene as a 
Matter of Right and a Request for Setting.  
On September 6, 2007, the district court entered an order granting 
Capshaw's motion to intervene.  On 
that same day, the court also entered an order denying the petition to approve 
the sale to Capshaw.  On September 
13, 2007, Capshaw filed a Notice of Appeal, specifically appealing the Order 
Denying Petition for Approval of Sale of Real Property and Approving a Sale to the Beneficiaries 
Pursuant to the Corbett Family Agreement Dated August 10, 
2007.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶9]      Capshaw states 
the issues as follows:

 
 
A.     Whether the district 
court erred in ruling on the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment without allowing 
[Capshaw] an opportunity to be heard on the matter.

 
 
B.     Whether the district 
court erred in ruling on the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment contrary to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 1-37-113.

 
 
Corbett 
states the following two issues:

 
 

A.      
Was 
the District Court's failure to allow Capshaw an opportunity to be heard on the 
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment harmless error in light of the fact that 
Capshaw should not have been allowed to intervene in the first 
place?

 
 

B.      
Whether 
Capshaw should have been allowed to intervene as a matter of right, since she 
had no legally protectible interest, because the contract in question was 
contingent upon the Court's approval?

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]   As can be seen from the statement 
of issues, both parties largely frame their appellate arguments around whether 
Capshaw should have been allowed to intervene and participate in the matter: 
 Capshaw claiming that as an 
intervening party she should have been given an opportunity to be heard; Corbett 
arguing that the court erred in allowing Capshaw to intervene.  Although there may be legitimate issues 
concerning whether the motion to intervene was properly granted, Corbett did not 
appeal the Order Granting Motion to Intervene.  Capshaw's notice of appeal only 
challenges the order on the declaratory judgment action.  Corbett did not file a cross-appeal 
challenging the Order Granting Motion to Intervene.1 

 
 
[¶11]   The timely 
filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and the failure timely to file a 
notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 
 W.R.A.P. 1.03; Nish v. Schaefer, 2006 WY 85, ¶ 24, 
138 P.3d 1134, 1143 (Wyo. 2006); Yeager v. Forbes,  2003 WY 134, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d 241, 246-47 (Wyo. 
2003); Harding v. Glatter, 2002 WY 124, ¶ 6, 53 P.3d 538, 539 
(Wyo. 2002).  We will not consider 
appellate argument or issues arising out of an improper or untimely notice of 
appeal.  For example, in Nish v. Schaefer, 
judgment was entered against the 
appellant and he filed a timely notice of appeal.  2006 WY 85, ¶¶ 4, 22, 138 P.3d  at 1137, 
1142.  After the appellant filed his 
notice of appeal, the district court awarded costs to the appellee and the 
appellant filed a second notice of appeal challenging the award of costs.  Id.  
The appellant failed to file a brief in the second appeal and it was 
dismissed for lack of prosecution.  Id. at 2006 WY 85, ¶ 22, 138 P.3d  at 
1142.  Undaunted by the dismissal of the costs appeal, the appellant 
included an issue in his brief in the first appeal contesting the award of 
costs.  Id.  
We declined to consider the costs issue reasoning that "[s]ince [the 
first appeal] does not include an appeal from the district court's order on 
costs, issues pertaining to that order cannot be raised in this appeal."  Id. 
at 2006 WY 85, ¶ 24, 138 P.3d  at 1143.

 
 
[¶12]   We are confronted with a similar 
problem here.  Because Corbett 
failed to appeal from the order granting the motion to intervene, we do not have 
jurisdiction to determine whether the motion was properly granted, and issues 
pertaining to that order cannot be raised in this appeal.  Thus, we must proceed on the basis that 
Capshaw was properly made a party to the action below.

 
 

[¶13]   The order allowing Capshaw to 
intervene was entered after the hearing on the matter had already occurred and 
on the same day the declaratory judgment order was entered.  Thus, Capshaw was not given the 
opportunity to present argument or evidence regarding the question of whether 
the sale should have been approved.  An intervener "[becomes] a party to the litigation with the same rights and 
responsibilities of an original party to the litigation."  Eklund v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2004 WY 24, ¶ 12, 86 P.3d 259, 263 (Wyo. 2004).  
"Due 
process of law includes notice and an opportunity to be heard. That notice and the opportunity to be 
heard are unquestionably incidental to affording due 
process of law."  Loghry 
v. Loghry, 920 P.2d 664, 668 
(Wyo. 
1996).  "It 
is basic that, before 
a property interest can be terminated, except in emergency situations, due 
process must be afforded to litigants in the form of notice and a 
meaningful 
opportunity to be heard.'" Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 880 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Lawrence-Allison & Assocs. 
West, Inc. v. Archer, 767 P.2d 989, 997 (Wyo. 1989)) (emphasis in original).  In the instant case, Capshaw had no 
opportunity to protect her interest, if any, in the 
property.

 
 
[¶14]   Any decision by this Court would be 
premature as Capshaw was not afforded the opportunity to participate in the 
declaratory judgment action to which she was made a party.  Thus, the matter must be remanded for a 
new hearing where all parties may be heard.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶15]   Corbett failed to appeal from the 
order allowing Capshaw to intervene in this matter and therefore he cannot 
challenge that order in this appeal.  
Inasmuch as Capshaw was a party to the dispute below, she should have 
been given notice and an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings.  Because this did not occur, we reverse 
and remand for a new hearing. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1W.R.A.P. 
2.01(a)(2) addresses cross-appeals and provides:  "If a timely notice of appeal is filed 
by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 15 days of the 
date on which the first notice of appeal was filed."