UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GEORGE M. SONNETT, JR.; WENDY Z. 

BURGERS SONNETT, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

DAVE LANKFORD, in his personal 

capacity and in his official capacity as 

Sublette County Sheriff; NEAL R. 

STELTING; MATT GAFFNEY; ELK 

RIDGE LODGE, INC., a Wyoming 

corporation, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 16-8062 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00024-SWS) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiffs George M. Sonnett and Wendy Z. Burgers Sonnett (Sonnetts) appeal 

from the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 

their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of their due process 

rights. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 16, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

BACKGROUND 

The Sonnetts bought about twenty acres of land in Sublette County, Wyoming, 

from defendant Elk Ridge Lodge, Inc. (Elk Ridge). To finance part of the purchase 

price, the Sonnetts gave Elk Ridge a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the 

property. Following the Sonnetts default, Elk Ridge filed foreclosure proceedings in 

Wyoming state court. Eventually, the court entered summary judgment in favor of 

Elk Ridge and against the Sonnetts on the foreclosure claim. The final judgment and 

order, dated April 22, 2010, held that “Elk Ridge . . . is entitled to and may foreclose 

upon its Mortgage, the real property and its improvements be sold pursuant to law, 

and the sums received therefrom be applied as set forth in the Mortgage and 

according to law.” Aplt. App. at 381-82. The Sonnetts appealed. 

 While the case was on appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court, Elk Ridge went 

forward with the foreclosure, including the sale of the property at which it was the 

only bidder. Following the sale, Wayne Bardin, who was then Sheriff of Sublette 

County, issued a Certificate of Purchase to Elk Ridge, which provided, among other 

things, that Elk Ridge would receive a Sheriff’s Deed at the expiration of the 

redemption period unless the Sonnetts redeemed the property. When the Sonnetts 

failed to redeem, defendant Dave Lankford (Sheriff Bardin’s successor) issued a 

Sheriff’s Deed to Elk Ridge on February 10, 2011. 

 On April 8, 2011, Mr. Sonnett wrote a letter to Sheriff Lankford challenging 

his authority to issue the Sheriff’s Deed. Defendant Matt Gaffney, a Deputy County 

Attorney, responded and denied any wrongdoing. 
3 

Next, the Sonnetts filed a “Motion for Order Requiring Sheriff to Appear and 

Show Cause” in the state court foreclosure action. Id. at 446. They argued that 

Sheriff Lankford executed and delivered the Sheriff’s Deed in violation of 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-17-321. Elk Ridge responded that § 1-17-321 “pertains only to 

execution in aid of satisfying a judgment, not the foreclosure of a mortgage.” 

Aplt. App. at 455. The court denied the motion. See id. at 465. Later, the Wyoming 

Supreme Court affirmed the foreclosure order entered in April 2010. Elk Ridge 

Lodge, Inc. v. Sonnett, 254 P.3d 957 (Wyo. 2011). 

In their federal suit, the Sonnetts pled several claims based on the alleged 

violation of their due process rights when Sheriff Lankford executed and delivered 

the Sheriff’s Deed without obtaining court confirmation. They also argued, without 

any evidence, that Elk Ridge’s bid was grossly inadequate. Defendants moved for 

summary judgment on several grounds, including that Wyoming law does not require 

confirmation of the sale in judicial foreclosure proceedings. The district court agreed 

and entered summary judgment for defendants. The Sonnetts appeal. 

ANALYSIS 

The Sonnetts’ due process claim was based on an alleged violation of their 

constitutional rights resulting from Sheriff Lankford’s violation of Wyoming law 

when he executed and delivered the Sheriff’s Deed: “Plaintiffs bring this action 

resulting from damages incurred due to the violation of their due process rights by 

Defendant[s] Lankford, Stelting and Gaffney based on their actions relating to the 

execution and delivery of a sheriff’s deed by Lankford in violation of state law.” 
4 

Aplt. App. at 13. They also sought a declaration that Elk Ridge “had no legal right to 

the Sheriff’s Deed from Lankford.” Id. at 18. 

 We agree with the district court that the Sonnetts have failed to identify any 

constitutionally protected property right in the property following expiration of the 

redemption period, and that issuance of the Sheriff’s Deed complied with Wyoming 

law. As a result, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the 

Sonnetts’ § 1983 due process and declaratory judgment claims. 

There is no requirement under Wyoming law for Sheriff Lankford to obtain 

confirmation of the sale prior to issuing a Sheriff’s Deed. In Wyoming, 

“[a] mortgagee’s only remedy upon mortgage default is foreclosure and public sale, 

either by power of sale pursuant to Wyo. Stat. §§ 34-4-101 to -13 . . . or by judicial 

sale in accordance with Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-18-101 to -112.” Sannerud v. Brantz, 

928 P.2d 477, 480 (Wyo. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The statutes do 

not require confirmation in either type of sale. 

Nonetheless, the Sonnetts urge us to apply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-17-321, which 

requires the court to confirm execution sales, to sales in foreclosure actions. We 

decline to do so because it would require us to impermissibly “expand the plain 

language of a statute to encompass requirements beyond those clearly set out by the 

legislature.” In re RB, 294 P.3d 24, 29 (Wyo. 2013). 

We also disagree with the Sonnetts that Wyoming case law establishes the 

“right . . . to a confirmation hearing following a judicial sale.” Aplt. Opening Br. 
5 

at 13. We have reviewed the cases and other authorities cited by the Sonnetts and 

find no such right. Moreover, the cases can be distinguished on the facts.1

 

Although we recognize that compliance with state law does not necessarily 

satisfy constitutional due process standards, Sonnetts’ due process challenge is 

predicated entirely on defendants’ alleged noncompliance with Wyoming law. 

Accordingly, our determination that defendants complied with state foreclosure 

procedures is sufficient to resolve this appeal. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We grant the Sonnetts’ motion 

to file their reply brief out of time. 

Judge Hartz concurs in the result. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

 

 1

 The district court held that inadequacy of price is not a sufficient basis for 

invalidating a sale. On appeal, the Sonnetts state the issue is “irrelevant to any issue 

that was before the district court.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 20. As such, we do not 

consider it.