Opinion ID: 1118538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 12(b (6) Dismissals

Text: Banks argue that automatic conversion to summary judgment occurred when the Lamborn affidavit was presented to and considered by the trial court in ruling on their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) governs conversion of a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered [12(b)](6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. In Kimbley v. City of Green River, 642 P.2d 443, 446 (Wyo.1982), we stated that conversion under Rule 12(b) cannot be accomplished unless the nonmoving party has (1) notice of the court's intent to convert the motion to one for summary judgment, and (2) an opportunity to submit rebuttal materials under Rule 56. We elaborated on the first requirement in Torrey v. Twiford, 713 P.2d 1160, 1164 (Wyo.1986). In that case, we said that when affidavits are attached to a motion to dismiss and considered by the trial court, the motion converts automatically to a motion for summary judgment. In such circumstances, the nonmoving party is not entitled to additional notice of the conversion, unless the record demonstrates unfair or inappropriate surprise. See also e.g., Cranston v. Weston County Weed and Pest Board, 826 P.2d 251, 254 (Wyo.1992); Brebaugh v. Hales, 788 P.2d 1128, 1134 (Wyo.1990); Mostert v. CBL & Associates, 741 P.2d 1090, 1096-97 (Wyo.1987). We have also discussed the second requirement in Kimbley, which is that the nonmoving party be granted reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion. W.R.C.P. 12(b). This means, at a minimum, that the nonmovant must have ten days to respond to the converted motion prior to any hearing on it. Torrey, at 1165; see also W.R.C.P. 56. On the surface, the Banks' motion here fulfilled the technical requisites for automatic conversion. The Lamborn Affidavit was both submitted to and considered by the court. We are unable to accept Shriners' claim that the affidavit was somehow incompetent. The affidavit and attachments assisted the court in arriving at two of its conclusions: (1) that the probate court was apprised of the existence of the appraisals, the interests to be sold, and the value of the Ranch; and (2) that the sale price was reasonable. Furthermore, more than ten days elapsed between the time the Banks filed their motion and the court ruled on it. We must also note that even though the trial court entered an order of dismissal rather than an order for summary judgment, this did not prevent conversion from occurring. See e.g., Greaser v. Williams, 703 P.2d 327, 336 n. 4 (Wyo. 1985). However, under the circumstances, we must hold that if summary judgment was entered, it was improvidently entered. The record demonstrates that Shriners had neither notice of the trial court's intent to convert nor a reasonable opportunity to submit materials in response to a summary judgment motion. Shriners was unfair[ly] or inappropriate[ly] surprised when the court considered the Lamborn Affidavit, thus triggering automatic conversion, without having responded to Shriners' request for clarification as to whether conversion had occurred. Furthermore, the confusion created by the court's failure to respond, coupled with its refusal to grant more time for discovery, prevented Shriners from having a reasonable opportunity to respond to the motion. The record shows how Shriners was deprived of notice and an opportunity to respond. Prior to the filing of Shriners' second amended complaint, on August 29, 1990, the Banks filed a motion for protective order, requesting that Shriners not be allowed to complete any more discovery until the second amended complaint was filed. Shriners had completed written discovery but had not taken depositions at that point. A hearing was set on the protective order for September 7, 1990; however, it does not appear that this hearing was ever held. Shriners later informed the court that the depositions had been rescheduled by stipulation for the week of November 5, 1990. The depositions were never completed; the Banks filed their answer and motion to dismiss one month later, on December 17, 1990. Shriners was not on notice that conversion was sought and thus immediate further discovery would be needed to respond in summary judgment posture until January 29, 1991, when Banks submitted their memorandum in support of dismissal or summary judgment, with the Lamborn Affidavit attached. Prior to that time, Shriners could reasonably have concluded that only a motion to dismiss was before the court. Even after the memorandum was filed, Shriners would have noted that it was phrased in the alternative, as supporting either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. It was still not clear whether dismissal or summary judgment would be granted. On March 4, 1991, Shriners filed a reply brief to the Banks' brief. Shriners requested that if the court meant to consider the motion as one for summary judgment, that it grant a continuance for Shriners to take the depositions of Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Hay, Mr. and Mrs. Eversole, Mr. Dickinson, appraisers, realtors, property managers, and other persons with relevant information. [1] The court did not act on this request. On March 21, 1991, Shriners filed a motion for hearing on the defendants' motions. Shriners alleged that all parties had had an adequate opportunity to brief the defendants' motions. On April 3, 1991, Shriners filed a motion withdrawing its previous request for a hearing and requesting that the court rule on the motions based on the briefs which had been filed. The Banks claim that Shriners waived lack of notice of conversion by filing these motions. However, Shriners referred only to pending motions to dismiss, presumably because the trial court had never responded to Shriners' request for continuance if a motion for summary judgment was contemplated. On May 30, 1991, the trial court entered its decision letter of dismissal, based in part on the Lamborn Affidavit.