Title: Jurkovich v. Estate of Tomlinson

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Jurkovich v. Estate of Tomlinson1992 WY 178843 P.2d 1166Case Number: 91-65Decided: 12/17/1992Supreme Court of Wyoming
Eli JURKOVICH, Appellant (Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
The ESTATE OF Emery TOMLINSON, deceased; Allyn Mae 
Tomlinson; and Eric A. Tomlinson, individually, and d/b/a Eric's Land and Cattle 
Company, aWyoming partnership, 
jointly and severally, Appellees (Defendants).

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

 
 
Joel M. 
Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, for appellant.

 
 
Robert B. 
Ranck and William P. Schwartz of Ranck & Schwartz, Jackson, for appellees.

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

 
 

* Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.

 
 

URBIGKIT, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     The question we must 
answer here is what disposition should be made of a father's contention that he 
was bamboozled into investing in a money-losing farming operation owned by his 
newly acquired son-in-law and parents-in-law?

 
 

[¶2.]     Appellant, Eli 
Jurkovich (Jurkovich), decided, in the days just preceding and following the 
marriage of his daughter, Mary Ann, to Eric A. Tomlinson, to invest money in a 
farm which was owned by Eric and his parents Emery and Allyn Mae Tomlinson 
(Tomlinsons). The farm was held by the Tomlinsons in a partnership known as 
Eric's Land & Cattle Company and, as the result of an agreement between 
Jurkovich and the Tomlinsons, Jurkovich acquired a one-half interest in the 
farm, with his son-in-law and daughter owning the other half. When the marriage, 
which had hurried along Jurkovich's decision to buy the farm, ended in failure, 
Jurkovich sought solace in a lawsuit against the Tomlinsons seeking damages for 
having been "defrauded" into buying an interest in the farm. The district court 
granted summary judgment in favor of the Tomlinsons on eleven counts 
constituting all claims alleged by Jurkovich except for a remaining prayer for 
accounting against Eric Tomlinson and a broadbased reciprocal counterclaim 
against Jurkovich. The appeal is presented on a W.R.C.P. 54(b), no just cause 
for delay, nunc pro tunc order. See Tader v. Tader, 737 P.2d 1065 n. 1 
(Wyo. 
1987).

 
 

[¶3.]     We hold that none of 
the issues raised in this matter are suitable for disposition upon motion for 
summary judgment and those issues must be presented for factual resolution at 
trial. We reverse and remand for trial on all issues presented in the complaint 
and pretrial order totalling twelve counts and the counterclaim of four 
counts.

 
 
I. 
ISSUES

 
 

[¶4.]     Jurkovich presents this 
statement of the issues:

 
 
A.

 
 
Did the 
district court err in adjudicating material facts in a summary judgment 
proceeding?

 
 
B.

 
 
Did the 
district court err in determining there were no genuine issues of material fact 
in this case?

 
 
C.

 
 
Did the 
district court err in granting summary judgment on claims of Jurkovich for fraud 
and intentional misrepresentation?

 
 
D.

 
 
Did the 
district court err in granting summary judgment on the claim of Jurkovich for 
constructive fraud?

 
 

[¶5.]     In response, the 
Tomlinsons contend, quite simply, that the only issue presented is the district 
court's determination that no genuine issues of material fact existed and the 
Tomlinsons were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 
 
II. THE 
STORY

 
 

[¶6.]     In his original 
complaint, Jurkovich set out the basic story, at least from his point of view.1 Jurkovich resided in Eureka, California, and was the owner of a very 
substantial flooring business (assets near $700,000.00). The Tomlinsons all 
resided in Riverton, 
Wyoming. Emery Tomlinson was the 
moving force in the Tomlinson family and estimated his wealth at about 
$4,000,000.00 (although by the time of his deposition, he may have lost much of 
that wealth).2 On December 13, 1982, the 
Tomlinson's purchased a farm for a total purchase price of $448,000. The 
purchase was effectuated by a real property trade by Eric Tomlinson with the 
sellers at a documented stated value of $260,000, and, in addition, assumption 
by the Tomlinsons of a mortgage in favor of Travelers Insurance Company 
(Travelers) of $188,000. The Tomlinsons did not make any cash payment in the 
farm purchase. The Tomlinsons originally placed the farm in a partnership called 
Eric's Land & Cattle Company, with the Tomlinsons owning a one-half interest 
and Eric owning a one-half interest. This farm is the centerpiece of the legal 
tumult which now rages between Jurkovich and the 
Tomlinsons.

 
 

[¶7.]     Jurkovich first met the 
Tomlinsons in early June of 1985 because his daughter was to marry Eric 
Tomlinson on July 7, 1985. That meeting took place at the farm and Jurkovich 
claims Emery Tomlinson, speaking on behalf of and with the knowledge of the 
Tomlinson family, offered to sell Jurkovich the fifty percent interest in the 
farm owned by the Tomlinsons with representation that the farm had a value of 
$475,000, although there was a mortgage balance remaining on the farm in favor 
of Travelers in the amount of $160,000 and a chattel mortgage on a windrower of 
$15,000. Jurkovich also claims Emery Tomlinson told him the farm was making 
money and, if he would assume the obligations to Travelers and the windrower, 
Jurkovich would receive a one-half interest in the farm, i.e., for an investment 
of $175,000 he would receive a one-half interest in a farm worth $475,000. 
Jurkovich contends that he was led to believe, by Emery Tomlinson, that this was 
to be a very good deal.

 
 

[¶8.]     Emery Tomlinson 
disputed many of these facts. He claimed Jurkovich initiated the discussion 
about buying an interest in the farm. Emery Tomlinson maintained he told 
Jurkovich he was going to sell the farm because it was not making money and he 
was unwilling to put any more money into it. Emery Tomlinson claimed Jurkovich 
wanted to buy the farm as a "nice place" for his daughter and granddaughter to 
live and as a hedge against the dollar becoming worthless, as well as his 
apparent desire for a place where people could be self-sufficient.3

 
 

[¶9.]     In significant part, 
Jurkovich's claims are based upon a hand-written note prepared by Emery 
Tomlinson during a meeting between the two men. That meeting took place under a 
tree on the farm - it was a beautiful summer's day when the farm was all abloom 
and the alfalfa was growing robustly. That handwritten note stated: [image]4

 
 

[¶10.]  Perhaps the most divisive and 
economically significant issue in the claims of fraud and seller misconduct 
related to how and when buyer acquired knowledge of the balloon payment status 
of the Travelers mortgage, creating a due-in-full date of 1987. The original 
Travelers mortgage had been renegotiated in 1982-1983 for payment deferrals 
which resulted in both an interest rate increase and acceleration of the due 
date into a final ballooned payment due in 1987. Recorded documents existed from 
which this information could have been acquired. However, information concerning 
how this important financial factor was provided to Jurkovich is totally in 
evidentiary conflict within the summary judgment record. (See, however, the 
letter from Emery Tomlinson to Jurkovich of July 25, 1985 quoted hereafter in 
footnote five.) It is clear, without question, that as these negotiations were 
underway, Eric Tomlinson was in correspondence with Travelers about a further 
deferment in payment, with the assertion that he did not have the money to make 
the payment. Actually, part of the Jurkovich original $35,000 was providently 
available to apply to make up the payment then past due in July 1985.5 

 
 

[¶11.]  In addition to the initial purchase 
price, Emery Tomlinson claimed he had actually expended about $300,000 on the 
farm (in terms of payments, advances, improvements, etc.). However, at this 
stage the evidence is clouded as to whether this was "his money" or money from 
the farm earnings which was used to pay expenses and was less than the total 
expenses which he claims to have underwritten to the tune of over $50,000 during 
the first couple of years they owned the farm, i.e., there is a question whether 
Emery Tomlinson really spent only $50,000 of "his money" on the farm and if the 
remaining $250,000 was income of the farm used to pay expenses. Eric Tomlinson, 
of course, did "trade" his home and shop for the farm, although their "real" 
values at the time of the trade are not of record.6

 
 

[¶12.]  Jurkovich asserted he reposed unusual 
trust and confidence in the Tomlinsons because of the impending marriage of 
their children, although he did call in his wife's sister and brother-in-law who 
were Colorado 
farmers and who, before the sale was executed, gave him their opinion the farm 
seemed to be worth $475,000. In consummating the sale, Jurkovich also utilized 
the services of an attorney and accountant, as did the Tomlinsons. While still 
in Riverton for the July 7, 1985 marriage, Jurkovich agreed to purchase a 
one-half interest in the farm by assuming the obligations to Travelers and for 
the windrower. On August 9, 1985, Jurkovich signed the last of the three 
assumption agreements which were used to effect the sale of the farm. The first 
assumption agreement was between Jurkovich and Eric's Land and Cattle Company; 
the second agreement provided that Jurkovich was purchasing a one-half interest 
in the farm from Emery and Allyn Mae Tomlinson as husband and wife; and the 
third was between Jurkovich and Eric Tomlinson. The Tomlinsons claim the 
agreement was modified twice to please Jurkovich and Jurkovich claims the 
modifications were at the behest of the Tomlinsons. Jurkovich claimed these 
agreements were pushed by the Tomlinsons because of pending litigation against 
them, that he was not informed of the impending litigation, and that it could 
have threatened his ownership interest in the farm. The Tomlinsons claim 
Jurkovich was the one who wanted the assumption agreements modified as a result 
of advice from his accountant and because he no longer wanted to agree that he 
would gift his interest in the farm to his daughter.7 In consummation of the sale, deeds 
were signed, along with the other necessary documents, and, when the dust 
settled, Jurkovich and Eric Tomlinson owned the farm (lock, stock and barrel - 
all land, leases, equipment, improvements, etc.) as tenants in common.8

 
 

[¶13.]  Jurkovich claims the Tomlinsons 
misrepresented the value of the farm, i.e., they knew it was worth far less than 
the amount they had allegedly put into it at the time they convinced Jurkovich 
to buy a one-half interest. The Tomlinsons knew this, he claimed, because they 
were fully aware of land values in Fremont County, Wyoming and because they had unsuccessfully 
tried to sell the farm. Further, Jurkovich contends they conspired to conceal 
from him the fact that the farm had never made money and that it had been, and 
would continue to be, necessary to put money into the operation.9 Jurkovich also claims the 
Tomlinsons manipulated his first payment of $35,000 toward the farm (see 
footnote five), which he mailed to the Tomlinsons and which was to be applied to 
the Travelers mortgage, so as to recover interest they had paid Travelers for 
the year 1985 and to misappropriate some of those funds for purposes of 
operating the farm. Jurkovich maintains the Tomlinsons knew, or should have 
known, he would rely upon their representations because of the trust he had 
reposed in them as in-laws and because they knew he knew nothing about farming. 
Emery Tomlinson also claimed that neither he nor his son knew anything about 
farming, although they had operated the farm for about two and one-half years at 
the time the Jurkovich/Tomlinson deal was effectuated.

 
 

[¶14.]  After the "sale" to Jurkovich was 
complete, he continued in participation by cash contribution to the farm 
operation until nearly the end of 1986 when he decided to stop.10 Also, the marriage, then only a 
year and a half old, was traveling on rocky ground. Eventually, Jurkovich 
authorized the sale of the farm. The equipment was sold first for $70,000 (the 
total sale was $79,000, but Eric and Mary Ann claimed $9,000 of the sale as 
their own personal property). The land was put up for auction sale in which the 
highest bid was only $120,000, which could not be accepted since it was below 
the remaining mortgage balance on the Travelers mortgage. Because the Travelers 
mortgage was in default, a foreclosure sale was held and Travelers bought the 
farm for the amount of their note (about $145,000). Nobody received anything for 
the sale of the farm land. Eric and Mary Ann left for Oregon and eventually, in 
1988, divorced. Thus, once the dust settled, Eric Tomlinson took $35,000 as his 
interest in the equipment sale and placed $35,000 in an account to be paid over 
to Jurkovich when directed to do so by a court. In essence, no one had much of 
anything, in terms of cash, as a memory of the farm.

 
 
III. 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶15.]  We must assay the allegations and 
evidence of the parties to determine if there exists the components required to 
be present before summary judgment is prudent. Allmaras v. Mudge, 820 P.2d 533 
(Wyo. 1991). 
In this instance, after completing the six-stage analysis described in Cordova 
v. Gosar, 719 P.2d 625, 634-40 (Wyo. 1986), we hold motion denial was required 
and trial disposition necessary.

 
 

[¶16.]  Jurkovich sought relief based upon eleven 
causes of action which the district court summarized as 
follows:

 
 
     [1] Count 1 alleges a 
conspiracy to fraudulently induce plaintiff to assume a mortgage.

 
 
     [2] Count 2 alleges a 
material misrepresentation by Defendants as to the value of the property 
inducing the execution by Plaintiff of three assumption agreements.

 
 
     [3] Count 3 alleges fraud 
as to values relating to the property.

 
 
     [4] Count 4 alleges 
constructive fraud.

 
 
     [5] Count 5 alleges bad 
faith in contractual and other dealings.

 
 
     [6] Count 6 alleges 
outrageous conduct entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages.

 
 
     [7] Count 7 alleges that a 
partnership was created in the relationship between the parties, entitling 
Plaintiff to dissolution, debts of the partnership being paid and an 
equalization of the capital accounts of the partners.

 
 
     [8] Count 8 alleges a 
division of partnership profits and an accounting.

 
 
     [9] Count 9 alleges a 
breach of fiduciary duty.

 
 
     [10] Count 10 alleges bad 
faith on the part of the Defendants in their contractual relationship as a 
partner with Plaintiff.

 
 
     [11] Count 11 alleges 
outrageous conduct on the part of the Defendants which entitle Plaintiff to 
punitive damages.

 
 

[¶17.]  
Jurkovich admitted he dealt only with Emery Tomlinson, although Eric may 
have been present at one of their meetings.11 Jurkovich 
stated that he did have a conversation with Allyn Mae Tomlinson over dinner, but 
recited that he could not remember that conversation by stating, "It's hard to 
say what we talked about. Sex or * * *." So, as to the allegations of 
conspiracy, there is little or no evidence at this point, save for the fact that 
neither Allyn Mae or Eric came forward with any disclosures of their own. Also, 
the books for the farm, which had been kept by Allyn Mae until the sale to 
Jurkovich, continued to be kept in offices controlled by the Tomlinsons, 
although Emery Tomlinson denied that any of the Tomlinsons ever "looked at them" 
after Eric and Mary Ann were married and assumed management control of the farm. 
Whether the issue is denominated as a "conspiracy" or as "an intent to defraud," 
makes very little difference at this stage of the proceeding. See Jerry Whitson, 
Note, Civil Conspiracy: A Substantive Tort?, 59 B.U.L.Rev. 921 (1979) and 16 
Am.Jur.2d Conspiracy, § 49 (1979). A civil conspiracy, or "concerted action" 
tort, may be proven by circumstantial evidence such as that which has been 
alleged in this case. See 16 Am.Jur.2d, supra, at § 68 and Britton v. Bill 
Anselmi Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., 786 P.2d 855, 859-61 (Wyo. 1990).

 
 

[¶18.]  
In summary, we have what is, perhaps, labeled in the law, of course with 
due regard for the feelings of the parties, a "testimony of contradiction" about 
nearly every fact and event. Jurkovich claims it was the Tomlinsons who proposed 
the whole deal. Emery Tomlinson claimed it was Jurkovich's idea. The Tomlinsons 
professed to have a certain "equity"12 in the farm 
which made it appear to Jurkovich that his purchase of an interest in the farm 
was a "good deal." The Tomlinsons claim Jurkovich had no interest in a "good 
deal"; rather, he was interested in buying a legacy for his daughter and 
granddaughter, as well as a hedge against "doomsday." Jurkovich claims, although 
he does so with great inconsistency, that he did not know the farm was a 
business which required the constant input of capital. The Tomlinsons claim 
Jurkovich knew from the very beginning that the farm needed money in order to 
keep it running and that it would only be his assumption of the farm's debts 
which would allow the newlyweds to make a living from the farm.

 
 

[¶19.]  
Many questions are presented. Did the Tomlinsons know their farm was 
worth much less than the money they had purportedly put into it? If so, were 
they merely "puffing?" Did the Tomlinsons stand in a fiduciary relationship as 
to Jurkovich? Did they perceive Jurkovich as a convenient person to assume an 
indebtedness on a farm that had lost much of its value, or did the Tomlinsons 
merely expect as a fair quid pro quo that Jurkovich might feel an obligation to 
put as much money into the farm as the Tomlinsons had done in order to provide a 
healthy and happy environment in which their children and grandchildren could 
grow up? Did the Tomlinsons work in concert to "sell" Jurkovich on the idea of 
buying an interest in the farm? Given the circumstances of this case, might 
Jurkovich have honestly and justifiably believed that the Tomlinsons had the 
same interest in assisting to provide a farm home and family legacy for Eric and 
Mary Ann, or did they simply perceive Jurkovich's immediate "love affair" with 
the farm as an opportunity to unload a very bad investment that had the prospect 
of becoming a deficiency judgment rather than an "equity" in a piece of very 
fine Wyoming soil? Should Jurkovich have made a more thorough inquiry into the 
value of farmland in FremontCounty, or was he justified in 
relying upon the Tomlinsons' representations? What was said or provided in 
addition to the handwritten note about the payout schedule for the Travelers 
mortgage or documents furnished which did or did not show the renegotiated 1987 
balloon payment due date?

 
 

[¶20.]  
Jurkovich and Emery Tomlinson were, in many ways, men of similar 
characteristics. Both were apparently successful businessmen with substantial 
assets; both were represented by counsel; neither sought outside advice (legal 
or otherwise) immediately before entering into the agreement which is now in 
dispute; and both had children who had had unsuccessful marriages and were, 
apparently, incapable of making it in the world without parental financial 
support. The agreement was largely unstructured on both sides. Both parties 
appear to have "lost" considerable sums of money on the proposition: the 
Tomlinsons, because there was nothing left of the farm they purchased in 1982; 
and Jurkovich, because he invested in that farm at a time when the 
all-too-well-known and disastrous plunge in the value of Wyoming farm property was taking 
place. Both have lost because the marriage between their children ended in 
divorce and because the always tenuous relationship between the parents of 
married children ended in loyalty to their respective children rather than to 
the agreement which they may or may not have entered into with eyes open and 
business judgment in operating order.

 
 

[¶21.]  
How can a court of law sort this out on the basis of depositions and 
affidavits? So much is grounded in credibility. So much is built upon human 
understanding of such relationships. So much counts on the weighing of the 
evidence pro and con. See generally Albrecht v. Zwaanshoek Holding En 
Financiering, B.V., 762 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1988); Rivermeadows, Inc. v. Zwaanshoek Holding En Financiering, 
B.V., 761 P.2d 662 (Wyo. 1988); 
Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867 (Wyo. 1975); Insurance Co. of North America v. Bath, 726 F. Supp. 1247, 
1254-55 (D.Wyo. 1989); Hofmann v. Hofmann, 94 Ill. 2d 205, 68 Ill.Dec. 593, 446 N.E.2d 499 (1983); 12 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts, ch. 
45 (3rd ed. 1970); 15A C.J.S. Confidential, at 352-58 (1967); and 91 C.J.S. 
Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 54-71 (1955). If this recitation of authority appears 
general and lacking in focus, that is, quite simply, because the matters at 
issue have not yet been fixed or focused on by the rigors of trial - the only 
vehicle which can carry this controversy to its denouement. Weaver v. Blue 
Cross-Blue Shield of Wyoming, 609 P.2d 984 (Wyo. 1980).

 
 

[¶22.]  
We do not find the dual requirements for granting summary judgment, "that 
there is no genuine issue of a material fact and the [appellee] is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law" to be demonstrated in this completely confused and 
factually conflicting record. Stratman v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 760 P.2d 974, 978 
(Wyo. 1988).

 
 
IV. CONCLUSION

 
 

[¶23.]  
Reversed and remanded for trial on all issues presented in the complaint, 
pretrial order and counterclaim.

 
 

APPENDIX I

 
 
1. Your affiant is that individual named as Plaintiff in 
the above-entitled litigation;

 
 
2. Your affiant is currently, and has for approximately 30 
years prior to the date of the execution by your affiant of this Affidavit, been 
engaged primarily in the flooring industry;

 
 
3. Other than your affiant's interest in the farm in 
question in this litigation, all other property in which your affiant has held 
an interest for approximately 30 years prior to the filing of this Affidavit is 
located within the state of California;

 
 
4. Your affiant's educational background consists of a high 
school diploma and one year of college at EasternMontanaCollege in Billings, Montana;

 
 
5. Your affiant has never engaged in farming as his 
livelihood at any time during your affiant's adult life;

 
 
6. Your affiant, prior to his dealings with the Defendants, 
had never considered nor acquired an ownership interest in agricultural real 
estate in California or any other state;

 
 
7. Your affiant, sometime in the early spring of 1985, was 
informed by his daughter, Mary Ann Slater, that she had met a fellow by the name 
of Eric A. Tomlinson;

 
 
8. Your affiant was further informed by his daughter, Mary 
Ann Slater, at a later time in the spring of 1985, that she was going [to] live 
with Eric A. Tomlinson at a farm that he and his parents owned north of 
Riverton, Wyoming;

 
 
9. As a result of your affiant's telephone conversation 
with his daughter, Mary Ann Slater, sometime in the spring of 1985 he traveled 
to Riverton, Wyoming, and met Eric A. Tomlinson, but did not at that time meet 
his parents, Emery Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson, nor did he discuss with 
anyone the subject of the farm owned by the Tomlinsons;

 
 
10. On the second occasion that your affiant traveled to 
Riverton, Wyoming, in late May or early June of 1985, your affiant met Emery 
Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson, the parents of Eric A. Tomlinson;

 
 
11. Upon the occasion of your affiant's introduction to 
Emery Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson, Emery Tomlinson raised the subject of 
the farm owned by Emery Tomlinson, Allyn Mae Tomlinson and their son, Eric, and 
inquired if your affiant was interested in purchasing an interest in the 
farm;

 
 
12. To your affiant's memory, he informed Emery Tomlinson 
that he would think about [it]; however, at the time of the first meeting of 
your affiant with Emery Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson, and at which time 
Emery Tomlinson inquired if your affiant would be interested in purchasing an 
interest in the farm, neither Emery Tomlinson, Allyn Mae Tomlinson or Eric A. 
Tomlinson made any representations concerning the value of the real estate or 
equipment comprising the farm, or what the equity in the farm might be;

 
 
13. Your affiant and his wife, Patricia Jurkovich, traveled 
to Riverton, Wyoming, in late June or early July of 1985, to attend the wedding 
of their daughter, Mary Ann Slater, and Eric A. Tomlinson, which took place on 
July 7, 1985, at the farm in question;

 
 
14. To your affiant's present recollection, two days prior 
to the wedding of Eric A. Tomlinson and Mary Ann Slater, your affiant met with 
Emery Tomlinson under a tree outside the home located on the farm in 
question;

 
 
15. Based upon your affiant's observation of the Tomlinson 
family and their relationship with each other, your affiant, by two days prior 
to the wedding of his daughter to Eric A. Tomlinson, had come to the conclusion 
and believed that Emery Tomlinson, when speaking with regard to the farm and any 
financial matter concerning his family, spoke with the whole family's consent 
and prior knowledge;

 
 
16. At the time your affiant and Emery Tomlinson sat and 
talked beneath the tree outside the main farm house on the farm in question, 
Emery Tomlinson wrote down on a piece of paper some information on the farm 
including placing in the left hand column the word "Equity" and beneath the same 
writing Emery - $200,000; Eric - $100,000; and Eli - $175,000, plus equipment 
which Emery Tomlinson did not value; a copy of said hand written note is 
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" to this Affidavit;

 
 
17. During the course of the conversation in which Emery 
Tomlinson produced the hand written note, a copy of which is attached hereto as 
Exhibit "A", Emery Tomlinson represented to your affiant that $475,000 was the 
value of the farm; there was a promissory note and mortgage on the farm due to 
Travelers Insurance Company, in the then approximate principal balance of 
$160,000; and, that the same could be paid at the rate of $30,000 per year until 
the note was paid in full;

 
 
18. Emery Tomlinson further represented orally to your 
affiant, and in the hand written note, that there was a debt due and owing on 
equipment to Borg Warner in the approximate sum of $15,000;

 
 
19. Emery Tomlinson orally represented to your affiant, as 
well as setting forth the same in the hand written note, that if your affiant 
would assume the debts of the Travelers Insurance Company obligation and the 
Borg Warner obligation, your affiant would receive a one-half interest in the 
farm and equipment;

 
 
20. Your affiant understood and reasonably relied upon 
Emery Tomlinson's intentional misrepresentation made on his own behalf, his 
wife's behalf and his son's behalf, as memorialized in his hand written note, 
that the real estate portion of the farm was worth $475,000; Emery Tomlinson 
made such intentional misrepresentation on his own behalf, his wife's behalf and 
his son's behalf, and your affiant reasonably relied upon and understood the 
same as Emery Tomlinson intended him to understand the note, that the value of 
the farm was $475,000;

 
 
21. Your affiant agreed to assume the Travelers Insurance 
Company obligation and the Borg Warner obligation, based upon the intentional 
misrepresentations of Emery Tomlinson to your affiant both orally and in 
writing, in that your affiant reasonably believed, based upon his reasonable 
reliance as concerns the oral and written representations of Emery Tomlinson, 
that the real estate portion of the farm was worth $475,000; therefore, in 
return for your affiant assuming $175,000 in debt, your affiant would received 
one-half interest in the farm, which one-half interest would be worth $237,500, 
not including the value of your affiant's one-half interest in the equipment 
located upon the farm; Emery Tomlinson intended, as did his wife and his son, 
that such misrepresentations concerning the value of the farm would induce your 
affiant to agree to assume both the Travelers Insurance Company obligation and 
the Borg Warner obligation;

 
 
22. To your affiant's recollection, Emery Tomlinson raised 
the subject of the farm and your affiant purchasing an interest in the same by 
representing to your affiant that Eric A. Tomlinson and Mary Ann Slater could 
remain upon the farm; they would * * * lead a comfortable life upon the farm; 
and, if your affiant assumed the debts to Travelers Insurance Company and Borg 
Warner, they could then make a living from the operation of the farm;

 
 
23. Your affiant reposed great trust and confidence in 
Emery Tomlinson, Allyn Mae Tomlinson and Eric A. Tomlinson with regard to their 
representations, via Emery Tomlinson, concerning the value of the real estate, 
the amount and value of equipment comprising the farm, as well as the terms and 
conditions of the Travelers Insurance Company note and mortgage and the Borg 
Warner obligation, based upon the fact that his daughter, Mary Ann Slater, would 
within two days of the date upon which the hand written note was presented to 
him would marry Eric A. Tomlinson;

 
 
24. Your affiant believed and, in good faith, reasonably 
relied upon the representations of the Defendants, made via Emery Tomlinson, and 
accorded those opinions all respect given the fact that his daughter was about 
to marry Eric A. Tomlinson and, therefore, your affiant could not envision at 
the time that his soon to be son-in-law and his in-laws would misrepresent to 
him the value of the farm, including the real estate and equipment; the terms 
and conditions of the primary obligation against the same, that being the 
Travelers Insurance Company note and mortgage;

 
 
25. Your affiant further reasonably relied upon the 
representations on Emery Tomlinson made in his hand written note and orally on 
behalf of himself, his wife and his son, that the Travelers obligation was 
payable in annual installments of $30,000 per year, plus accrued interest at ten 
percent; your affiant, on July 19, 1985, transmitted a cashier's check made 
payable to Eric's Land and Cattle in the sum of $35,000; shortly after said 
transmission, your affiant and his wife, Patricia Jurkovich, discovered that the 
note and mortgage with Travelers Insurance Company provided for a balloon 
payment in the year 1987; your affiant's wife, Patricia Jurkovich, contacted 
Emery Tomlinson and confronted him with that information; your affiant felt 
bound to complete the transaction based upon agreeing to the same in principal 
with the Tomlinsons, as well as the fact that his daughter was now married to 
their son and because they already had $35,000 of his money; Emery Tomlinson, on 
July 24, 1987, transmitted a letter to your affiant and his wife wherein he 
admitted that he had failed to mention the balloon payment and also represented 
to them that he would aid them in obtaining either local financing or having 
Travelers Insurance Company [a]mend its note and mortgage such that the terms 
would comply with Emery Tomlinson in his handwritten note; neither Emery 
Tomlinson, his wife or his son ever made any efforts to aid your affiant in 
obtaining either modification of the note and mortgage or local financing 
approximating the terms and conditions represented by Emery Tomlinson both 
orally and in his hand written note;

 
 
26. Your affiant, through this litigation, has discovered 
that Emery Tomlinson, on June 3, 1985, and as result of your affiant not 
expressing an immediate interest in purchasing an interest in the farm, 
transmitted a letter to Travelers Insurance Company under the name of his son, 
Eric A. Tomlinson, and by writing his son's name on the letter, requesting that 
the Tomlinsons be allowed to pay only the accrued interest portion of the annual 
payment, that being approximately $15,810; and, further, that the principal 
portion of the note be placed at the back end of the note and mortgage; Emery 
Tomlinson made this request such that if Eli Jurkovich could not be fraudulently 
induced to assume the Travelers Insurance Company note and mortgage obligation, 
the Tomlinsons could then allow the same to be taken into default without having 
made the full annual payment; and, if in fact they could fraudulently induce 
your affiant to assume the obligation, that the $30,000 employed to pay the same 
would be your affiant's money;

 
 
27. On July 19, 1985, your affiant transmitted a cashier's 
check to Eric's Land and Cattle in the sum of $35,000;

 
 
28. Via discovery, your affiant has learned that the 
cashier's check for $35,000 was received by the Tomlinsons, approximately 
$15,800 of the same was paid to Emery Tomlinson and an additional $15,000 was 
paid to Travelers Insurance Company for the principal amount due on the 1985 
annual payment; the Tomlinsons did not forward the additional $5,000 as your 
affiant desired for additional payment towards the note and mortgage 
obligation;

 
 
29. The payment to Emery Tomlinson and the failure to pay 
the additional $5,000 to Travelers Insurance Company was done without your 
affiant's knowledge or consent; 

 
 
30. Your affiant has learned, via discovery, that Emery 
Tomlinson, by writing the signature of his son Eric A. Tomlinson, transmitted a 
letter to Travelers on the 24th day of July, 1985, stating that enclosed they 
would find the principal payment for the 1985 payment, and they envisioned no 
future difficulties in paying the note and mortgage as the same became due; the 
letter in question does not inform Travelers Insurance Company that the funds 
enclosed with the letter was [sic] received by the Tomlinsons from your affiant, 
nor that the Tomlinsons had agreed to convey a one-half interest in the real 
estate and equipment comprising of the farm to a third party, your affiant, in 
return for the third party, your affiant, assuming the Travelers Insurance 
Company note and mortgage;

 
 
31. Your affiant was not apprised by any of the Tomlinsons, 
at any time, about the transmission of the letter referred to in paragraph 30 of 
your affiant's Affidavit;

 
 
32. At the time Emery Tomlinson made the representations to 
your affiant in late June or early July, 1985, concerning the value of the farm 
on behalf of himself, his wife and his son, Emery Tomlinson did not disclose to 
your affiant that a farm information sheet was held by Fremont Realty, wherein 
the proposed sale price of $300,000, later reduced to $275,000, appears;

 
 
33. Your affiant was never informed by Emery Tomlinson, 
Allyn Mae Tomlinson or Eric A. Tomlinson of the fact that DeWayne Pfarr, on 
their behalf, transmitted a letter to Mr. Royer in Anchorage, Alaska, in March 
of 1985, offering to sell the farm to him for the sum of $300,000;

 
 
34. The three assumption agreements executed by your 
affiant were done so at the instance and request of the Tomlinsons; any changes 
as to the parties to the agreements, or the provisions in the agreements, were 
made at the direction of the Tomlinsons and not at the direction of your 
affiant;

 
 
35. Your affiant paid approximately $60,000 to Travelers 
Insurance Company on the note and mortgage; an additional approximate $15,000 to 
Borg Warner; and, in addition, your affiant transmitted, through 1985 and 1986, 
an additional $65,000;

 
 
36. Your affiant advanced the additional sum of $65,000 to 
the Tomlinsons based upon their representation to your affiant that at the time 
crops were harvested and sold, that sum of the money from the proceeds of the 
sale, equal to that which your affiant by that point in time had advanced, would 
be transmitted to Travelers Insurance Company as advance payments on the note 
and mortgage;

 
 
37. Your affiant was never informed by any of the 
Tomlinsons of the fact that they listed the property for sale with Fremont 
Realty in February of 1986 for $300,000, later reducing the sale price to 
$275,000;

 
 
38. None of the Defendants ever informed your affiant of 
the fact that Emery Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson insisted that their son, 
Eric A. Tomlinson, and your affiant's daughter, Mary Ann Slater, execute a 
security agreement in favor of them, based upon loans allegedly made by Emery 
Tomlinson and Allyn Mae Tomlinson to Eric A. Tomlinson prior to his marriage to 
Mary Ann Slater;

 
 
39. Your affiant was never aware of the existence of the 
security agreement, that the same was recorded and later released;

 
 
40. In August of 1986, the Tomlinsons represented to your 
affiant that they could sell the small home, with a small amount of acreage 
around the same, for $30,000 to Mr. and Mrs. Glen Rupert; your affiant agreed to 
said [sale], based upon his understanding that the net proceeds of the sale 
would be applied in their entirety to the Travelers Insurance Company note and 
mortgage; based upon your affiant's understanding he transmitted to Eric's Land 
and Cattle Company a check in the amount of $15,000 representing one-half of the 
proceeds of the sale of the property, in that the Tomlinsons owned a one-half 
interest in the farm; in fact, Travelers Insurance Company only insisted upon 
receiving approximately $11,000 and Eric A. Tomlinson expended the balance of 
the sale proceeds, as well as the sum of $15,000 which your affiant transmitted 
to Eric's Land and Cattle;

 
 
41. Your affiant reasonably relied upon the representations 
Emery Tomlinson made both orally and in writing in the note, a copy of which is 
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", in that Emery Tomlinson was known by your 
affiant to be an "investor" and knowledgeable in the real estate business; and, 
further, your affiant placed a high degree of confidence in the representations 
Emery Tomlinson made orally and in writing on behalf of himself, his wife and 
his son, in that Eric A. Tomlinson, within two days after the date of said 
representations, was to marry your affiant's daughter, Mary Ann Slater[.]

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1 
See Jurkovich's affidavit in Appendix I attached to this opinion. This case is 
exhaustively pleaded with allegations of what the facts were.

 
 

2 
Emery Tomlinson died during the course of this litigation, September 13, 1990, 
and his estate was substituted in the litigation.

 
 

3 
Emery Tomlinson claimed Jurkovich often talked about a "doomsday" where it would 
be necessary to have a place to live where people could be self-sufficient. In 
furtherance of this goal, Emery Tomlinson asserted Jurkovich commanded that Eric 
and Mary Ann buy the right equipment, etc., and plant a garden where they could 
grow crops suitable for feeding human beings. As it was, the farm was devoted 
almost entirely to growing crops suitable for feeding cattle. A significant 
amount of the money (the $35,000 which is more fully discussed later in this 
opinion) Jurkovich forwarded to the Tomlinsons as an initial payment on the farm 
was used for this purpose.

 
 

4 
Two things can, without question, be determined from this record in regard to 
this circa July 7, 1985 handwritten note prepared by Emery Tomlinson. At the 
time the note was prepared, the May 1985 annual mortgage payment was unpaid and 
delinquent. Additionally, the $30,000 per year payment existed only for 1986 
since the mortgage balance was ballooned to be due in full in 1987.

 
 

5 
Jurkovich denied being informed of the balloon payment until after his initial 
payment on the deal and confirmation by letter dated July 25, 1985, written by 
Emery Tomlinson.

 
 
     Without question, the prior 
owner had, in 1982 and 1983, entered into a modification agreement with 
Travelers to defer payments, apparently also by virtue of a financial squeeze, 
with the result of an interest rate increase and the substantial acceleration of 
the due date to 1987. Information regarding the modification is contained in 
three separate documents. At variant places in this very confused and 
disorganized record, copies of those documents are found which total eight in 
number reflecting no evidence of having been recorded and two with recording 
information which were first revealed to Jurkovich by attachment to an October 
1, 1990 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Traverse of Defendants' Motion for 
Summary Judgment. This is the first time anywhere in this record any copy of a 
recorded or unrecorded document showing the balloon payment modification is 
found, which is in a letter-sized agreement dated July 21, 1982 and entered into 
between the Tomlinsons' predecessor and Travelers. In this record, there is 
absolutely nothing to suggest that the Tomlinsons furnished documents or 
information to Jurkovich in advance of sale completion revealing that the 
Travelers' note included this two-year balloon payment requirement created as a 
price for the 1982 and 1983 payment deferrals. There is, however, a constructive 
notice issue created by the apparently undisclosed recording.

 
 
     The significance of the 
status of the loan is demonstrated by three letters exchanged between Travelers 
and Eric Tomlinson in the period of June and July 1985 and the admission letter 
from Emery Tomlinson to Jurkovich of July 25, 1985:

 
 

Riverton, 
Wyoming 
June 3, 1985

 
 
Mr. C.D. Haines, General Manager 

 
 
The Travelers Insurance Companies Real Estate Investment 
Department 

 
 

7200 E. Orchard Road 

 
 

PO Box 
5980

 

 
 

Denver, 
CO80217

 
 
Dear Mr. Haines;

 
 
This is regarding our telephone conversation of June 3, 
1985.

 
 
We would like to request that the Principal in the amount 
of $15,000.00 be added on to the end of our loan agreement. Our loan number is 
1993054. Also enclosed per your request is the interest payment of $15,810.00. 
[Ch # 1575]

 
 
Thank you for your courtesy in helping us out.

 
 

Eric 
TomlinsonLand 
& Cattle 

 
 
/s/ 

 
 
Eric Tomlinson

 
 
June 20, 1985

 
 
Eric Tomlinson 

 
 

2159 West Bend Dr. 

 
 

Riverton, 
Wyoming82501

 
 
RE: Travelers Loan No.: 1993054

 
 
Dear Mr. Tomlinson:

 
 
As per you request to me in your letter dated June 3, 1985, 
Travelers is willing to extend the June 1, 1985 principal payment now due in the 
amount of $15,000.00 to maturity for the following considerations:

 
 
1) An increase in the contract rate from 10% to 10 1/2% 
annual, effective with your next payment due and payable June 1, 1986.

 
 
2) An increase in the delay rate from 12% to 18%, also 
effective with your next payment due and payable June 1, 1986.

 
 
3) A $250.00 modification fee for the preparation of the 
necessary documents.

 
 
4) Travelers will also require an endorsement to our title 
policy maintaining a first position, and or a subordination of all junior 
creditors.

 
 
5) You will also be required to pay all costs and legal 
fees incurred by virtue of this modification.

 
 
If the above is agreeable to you, please return the signed 
original copy with your check for $250.00, made payable to The Travelers 
Insurance Company by July 1, 1985.

 
 

Riverton, 
Wyoming

 
 
July 24, 1985

 
 
Mr. C.D. Haines, General Manager 

 
 
The Travelers Insurance Companies Real Estate Investment 
Department 

 
 

7200 E. Orchard Road 

 
 

PO Box 
5980

 

 
 

Denver, 
CO80217

 
 
Dear Mr. Haines;

 
 
Enclosed please find my additional check of $15,000.00 to 
be applied on the principal of our loan # 1993054.

 
 
Sorry about the delay, but we were able to come up with the 
balance due on our payment, so we will not have to ask for the extention [sic]. 
In the future, I feel very confident that I will be able to keep the principal 
and interest paid on schedule.

 
 
Thank you!

 
 

Eric 
TomlinsonLand 
& Cattle

 
 
/s/

 
 
Eric Tomlinson

 
 

Riverton, 
Wyoming

 
 
July 25, 1985

 
 
Dear Eli & Pat,

 
 
     Pat, you are absolutely 
right! The balance of the note is due June 1, 1987. It's been a long time since 
I did this and I didn't look at the papers before the attorney mailed them to 
you.

 
 
     I will talk to Mr. Haines, 
General Manager of Travelers Insurance and request a continuous pay out based on 
the same terms as we are presently paying. I feel very confortable [sic] that 
this can be handled with them, but in the event it can't, I am sure we can make 
other arrangements locally at that time. Will keep you informed.

 
 
     Enclosed is a copy of the 
original contract. Call me if you have questions.

 
 
     Our best to you both!

 
 
Sincerely,

 
 
/s/

 
 
Emery Tomlinson

 
 

6 
It could well be that the "trade" for the farm was not structured at all upon 
"real" values but was, rather, done for "tax avoidance" purposes.

 
 

7 
By deed, Emery and Allyn Mae Tomlinson essentially gave their interest in the 
farm to their son Eric (thus, making a gift?). In the first two assumption 
agreements, it was stated that Jurkovich's commitment was to gift his interest 
to his daughter, but in the final agreement that language disappeared.

 
 

8 
Although the Tomlinsons apparently assumed Jurkovich and their son wanted to 
operate the farm as a partnership, Jurkovich eventually disabused them of this 
thought and ensured, maybe for tax purposes, that the farm was owned by he and 
Eric as tenants in common.

 
 

9 
The assumption agreements state that a part of Jurkovich's commitment was to 
underwrite the expenses of the farm, although he contends that was merely a 
mistake by his lawyer. The record clearly reveals that the farm operation was a 
heavy money loser in the years of 1983 and 1984 and apparently before the 
acquisition by the Tomlinsons and certainly after acquisition and before 
Jurkovich came on the scene. Additionally, the Tomlinsons had initiated sales 
efforts predating this transaction by listing the farm for sale at a price far 
below the $475,000 total which Jurkovich testified had been the purported value 
provided in discussions about his acquisition of the fifty percent interest.

 
 

10 
The record is somewhat confusing, but the Tomlinsons recognized in their 
appellate brief that "Appellant paid the amounts owing to Traveler's for 1985 
and 1986 (approximately $60,000.00), paid off the Borg-Warner obligation 
(approximately $15,000.00), and also advanced another $65,000.00 to Eric's Land 
and Cattle for operating expenses * * *." After all of these investments, the 
time came in late 1986 when Jurkovich had pulled the plug on his cash 
investment, after a total contribution of approximately $140,000, while the 
Travelers mortgage had been reduced only a fraction of that total by any applied 
portion of his investment contribution.

 
 

11 
The record reveals that Emery Tomlinson conducted most of the business, at least 
some of it by signing the name of his son, pursuant to the provisions of an 
asserted general power of attorney. As this record develops, the son, Eric 
Tomlinson, appears to have been only a silent participant while all business 
transactions were conducted by his father, many in the signed name of his 
son.

 
 

12 
"Equity" does have a fairly precise meaning in terms of real estate:

 
 
The remaining interest belonging to one who has pledged or 
mortgaged his property, or the surplus of value which may remain after the 
property has been disposed of for the satisfaction of liens. The amount or value 
of a property above the total liens or charges.

 
 
Black's Law Dictionary 540 (6th ed. 1990).

 
 
Equity: 3b: the money value of a property or of an interest 
in a property in excess of claims or liens (as mortgaged indebtedness) against 
it c: a risk interest or ownership right in property; specif: EQUITY 
SECURITY

 
 
Equity security also equity * * *: a stock issue; esp: the 
common stock of a corporation

 
 
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 769 
(1971).

 
 

CARDINE, Justice, dissenting.

 
 

[¶24.]  
I dissent. I would have affirmed the decision of the trial 
court.