Opinion ID: 2364766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the district court err in ordering the ejectment of the Bellises from the Kerseys' tract?

Text: [¶ 14] The Kerseys amended their petition to seek ejectment of the Bellises from that portion of the disputed lands lying within the Kerseys' deeded tract. Ejectment, once a common-law remedy, is now codified at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-32-202 (LexisNexis 2009): In an action to recover real property it is sufficient if the plaintiff's petition states that he has a legal estate in and is entitled to possession of the real property, describing the same with sufficient certainty as to enable an officer holding an execution to identify it, and that the defendant unlawfully keeps him out of possession. It is not necessary to state how the plaintiff's estate or ownership is derived. See Allen v. Houn, 30 Wyo. 186, 198, 219 P. 573, 577-78 (1923). [¶ 15] The district court found that the Kerseys own the property described in their tract, concluded that the Bellises had not proven adverse possession of the disputed portion of that tract, and ordered the Bellises ejected therefrom. The Kerseys' proof that the Bellises were unlawfully keeping them from possession of the disputed land consisted largely of evidence that on June 15, 2005, Mr. Kersey and others were in the process of building a fence along the surveyed boundary when Mr. Bellis came out and commanded them to the leave the property, which they did. The Kerseys filed suit against the Bellises eight days later. [¶ 16] In their brief on appeal, the Bellises have not presented an argument on the separate issue of ejectment, perhaps concluding that the issue of adverse possession would be determinative. Having reviewed the entire record, we certainly cannot conclude that the district court's findings of fact in regard to the ejectment claim are clearly erroneous, or that its conclusions of law are in error. The Kerseys held record title to the property, paid the property taxes, and attempted to possess the property, but were prevented from doing so by the Bellises, who had not perfected a claim to the property via adverse possession. We therefore affirm the order of ejectment.