Opinion ID: 2364766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the district court err in denying the Bellises' quiet title claim, and in granting the Kerseys' quiet title claim?

Text: [¶ 17] Quiet title actions are equitable in nature, although now statutorily based. Norris v. United Mineral Products Co., 61 Wyo. 386, 404, 158 P.2d 679, 684 (1945); 65 Am.Jur.2d Quieting Title §§ 4, 6 (2001). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-32-201 (Lexis-Nexis 2009) reads as follows: An action may be brought by a person in possession of real property against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining the adverse estate or interest. The person bringing the action may hold possession himself or by his tenant. (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the instant case, it is especially important to note that [a] quiet title action requires proof of possession, while an ejectment action requires proof that the complainant is illegally being kept from possession. Bragg v. Marion, 663 P.2d 505, 506 (Wyo.1983); see also 65 Am.Jur.2d Quieting Title § 2 (2001). Unless the land is vacant, an action for ejectment is the proper course for a party not in possession: [T]he rule requiring actual possession by plaintiff is based on the availability of full protection to him through an action in ejectment or its statutory substitute. If the land is not occupied by any one, the plaintiff having title may sue to have his title quieted, either because the remedy exists independent of the statute, or because his title gives him constructive possession. Goodrich v. Stobbe, 908 P.2d 416, 418 (Wyo. 1995) (quoting Ohio Oil Co. v. Wyoming Agency, 63 Wyo. 187, 208, 179 P.2d 773, 779 (1947)); see also Amick v. Elwood, 77 Wyo. 269, 277, 314 P.2d 944, 946-47 (1957), and Huber v. Delong, 54 Wyo. 240, 249-50, 91 P.2d 53, 56 (1939). [¶ 18] In the instant case, the Kerseys proved that the Bellises were in sufficient possession of the disputed portion of the Kersey tract so as to necessitate their ejectment therefrom. The Kerseys also proved that their own possession of the disputed parcel was prevented by the Bellises, despite the Kerseys' record title. The proper relief was ejectment, not quiet title. Denial of the Bellises' quiet title claim was appropriate, but the grant of the Kerseys' similar claim was not and the district court is reversed in regard to the latter.