Opinion ID: 2570567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Fishing Licenses

Text: 30. Fishing licenses, use agreements, or other rights to use or possess the Property which cannot be set aside or avoided by the Debtor under federal bankruptcy law, applicable state law, or rejected as executory contracts under federal bankruptcy law. [¶ 19] Therefore, the purchase agreement unambiguously expresses Thornton's agreement to abide by the fishing and club use licenses issued involving the Crescent H Ranch that were not set aside, avoided, or rejected by the RMA bankruptcy trustee. This intention is also further enunciated in the Stipulation Re License Claims entered into between the trustee of the RMA bankruptcy, Countryside, L.L.C., as the successor in interest of Thornton, the Marksteins, and Jon M. and Arlene M. Malinski, who also asserted fishing and club rights concerning the Crescent H Ranch. This document clarifies that: 1. The sale of the Rivermeadows property by the Trustee to Countryside or any other buyer shall be made subject to, and not free and clear of, the License Claimants' rights and entitlements with respect to their five fishing license and use agreement claims. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 above, the License Claimants' fishing license and use agreement rights and entitlements shall be subject to the claims asserted by the Trustee in the [adversary] Complaint. (Emphasis added.) This stipulation was approved by the bankruptcy court. [¶ 20] The order entered by the bankruptcy court authorizing the sale of Crescent H Ranch directed that the sale shall not be free and clear of the interests of those fishing license and use agreement holders identified in the Sale Motion. In addition, the bankruptcy court ordered that: Upon the Closing (as defined in the Purchase Agreement) title to the Property shall vest in Countryside or its assignees free and clear of all such liens, interests, claims, claims of co-ownership or community property, security interests, encumbrances, charges, liabilities, rights of parties to pending litigation relating to or arising in connection with the Property, prior assignments or interests of any kind, nature or description whatsoever (but not the interests of those fishing license and use agreement holders identified in the Sale Motion). [4] (Emphasis added.) The order also particularly provided that: The provisions of the Purchase Agreement and this Order shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties to the Purchase Agreement and their respective successors and assigns. [¶ 21] Finally, a reading of the Plan of Reorganization evidences that the trustee carved out an exception from the general rejection provision found at § 9.01 of the proposed plan with respect to fishing and club use agreements. Section 9.03 of the Plan of Reorganization states: 9.03 Exclusion of Fishing License, Club Amenity, and Similar Agreements. Nothing contained in Section 9.01 of the Plan shall be interpreted or construed as affecting or otherwise altering any rights, duties, and obligations arising out of, or in connection with, any prepetition fishing license, club amenity, club use, or other agreement that granted (a) fishing and access rights to the riparian lands formerly owned and occupied by the Debtor, and/or (b) rights of access to, and to the use of, the riparian lands and the amenities connected with the real property commonly known as the Crescent H Guest Ranch and formerly owned and occupied by the Debtor, including, without limitation, those rights, duties, and obligations arising out of any agreements under which ... Kenneth W. Markstein and Carole Markstein... claim to have fishing, riparian use, and/or guest service rights to the real property that was conveyed and transferred to Countryside pursuant to the Countryside Sale Order. Section 9.03 goes on to explicitly state that the fishing license and club use agreements were not to be treated as executory contracts by providing: The Plan does not classify or treat any fishing license, club amenity, club use, or other similar types of agreements as executory contracts and expressly disclaims any characterization of any such licenses or agreements as executory contracts. The bankruptcy court later confirmed the Plan of Reorganization. [¶ 22] The immediately-referenced documents establish that Thornton and his successor Countryside, L.L.C. entities purchased Crescent H Ranch subject to the fishing and club use rights unless set aside, avoided, or rejected by RMA in its bankruptcy. RMA never set aside, avoided, or rejected the fishing and club use rights possessed by the Marksteins. The fact that RMA never set aside, avoided, or rejected the fishing and club use rights possessed by the Marksteins demonstrate that the bankruptcy proceedings simply preserved the status quo and support the application of both the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. [¶ 23] As we noted in Amoco, at ¶ 12 (quoting Eklund ) the application of res judicata to those situations where a plaintiff attempts to bring the same claim in a subsequent action against the same or different defendants has a logical basis: It encourages resolution of the plaintiff's claims in a single action, and it forces parties to abide by their agreements. It is also logical that this same rule of law be followed in a circumstance such as this, where Thornton and his successors specifically agreed that they would honor the fishing and club use rights concerning the purchase of the Crescent H Ranch that were not set aside, avoided, or rejected by RMA. RMA never formally set aside, avoided, or rejected the fishing and club use rights held by the Marksteins. Notwithstanding, Countryside I, L.L.C. sent a letter to the Marksteins disavowing their fishing and club use rights, in essence forcing the Marksteins' to file this action seeking to enforce their fishing and club use rights. [¶ 24] In further discussing the Eklund decision in our Amoco opinion, we also identified that such positioning by a party is inherently unfair. Specifically, we acknowledged with approval those cases cited by Eklund that set forth authority for the application of the doctrine of res judicata to consent judgments and settlements. See Jefferson v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 451 P.2d 730 (Alaska 1969); Clark v. Haas Group, Inc., 953 F.2d 1235 (10th Cir.1992); and In re Laing, 31 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir.1994). Amoco, at ¶ 12. The actions taken by Thornton and his successors demand the same result. [¶ 25] We even went further in our analysis in Amoco, at ¶ 12, to address the effect of collateral estoppel on settlements or consent judgments. Therein, we established that normally issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not attach unless it is clearly shown that the parties intended that the issue be foreclosed in other litigation and that, in most circumstances, it is recognized that consent agreements are usually intended to preclude any further litigation on the claim presented (res judicata) but are not intended to preclude further litigation on any of the issues presented (collateral estoppel). Hence, we determined that consent judgments will ordinarily support claim preclusion (res judicata) but not issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). Nevertheless, we recognized an exception to the general rule that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be applied when settlement agreements that clearly express the intention of the parties to be bound in further proceedings are involved. Amoco, at ¶ 12 (citing 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4443, at 382-85 (1981); Linder v. Missoula County, 251 Mont. 292, 824 P.2d 1004, 1006-07 (1992); and Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 380, 385 (N.D.1992)). [¶ 26] Here, the exception to the general rule must be applied. Thornton and his successors in interest agreed to be bound by the fishing and club use rights granted the Marksteins with respect to the purchase of the Crescent H Ranch if they were not set aside, avoided, or rejected by RMA. RMA never formally set aside, avoided, or rejected the fishing and club use rights held by the Marksteins. [¶ 27] We identified in Amoco, at ¶ 17, that the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel requires a similar result. In Cross v. Berg Lumber Co., 7 P.3d 922, 930 (Wyo.2000) (citing Allen v. Allen, 550 P.2d 1137, 1142 (Wyo.1976)), we stated that judicial estoppel is sometimes referred to as a doctrine which estops a party to play fast and loose with the courts or to trifle with judicial proceedings. It is an expression of the maxim that one cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. A party will just not be allowed to maintain inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings. Further, we enunciated that judicial estoppel requires that where a man is successful in the position taken in the first proceeding, then that position rises to the dignity of conclusiveness. Cross, at 930 (citing Erhart v. Flint Engineering & Const., 939 P.2d 718, 724 (Wyo.1997); Hatten Realty Co. v. Baylies, 42 Wyo. 69, 290 P. 561, 566 (1930)). [¶ 28] Again, the undisputed evidence establishes that Thornton and his successors agreed to be obligated by the fishing and club use rights granted to the Marksteins with respect to the purchase of the Crescent H Ranch unless these rights were set aside, avoided, or rejected by RMA. Yet, RMA never formally set aside, avoided, or rejected those rights held by the Marksteins. [5]