Court Opinion

ID: 9630285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:07:22.463626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:35.704811
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I am compelled to concur in the reversal and remand of this case according to the majority opinion. I must confess that I do so somewhat reluctantly. The entire record tends to support what the district court did and would justify affirmance if it could be considered. Unfortunately, some of that information was presented in support of the bank’s motion for summary judgment, and it was not duplicated in the stipulation of facts upon which the district court decided the case. The court well *222might have been entitled to judicially notice those matters that came from public records, but there is no indication from the record that it did so. It is difficult for me to countenance the necessity for further proceedings in the district court, but there is no question that the disposition by this court is technically correct.
I would have no difficulty sustaining the judgment of the district court on the entire record. Once the district court denied the cross motions for summary judgment, however, the information which was presented in support of those motions no longer could be considered at the trial on the merits absent some consent by the parties. The only information upon which the court could decide the case on the merits was that set forth in the “Stipulated Facts.” That stipulation contains no information from which the inference could be drawn that the mortgage taken by the bank was a purchase money mortgage. It might have been possible for the court to judicially notice those matters of public record from which that inference could be made, but Rule 201(e), W.R.E., requires that a party is entitled to be heard if the court takes judicial notice of any fact, and that opportunity was not afforded the Van Pattens in this instance.
It is indeed unfortunate that this case must be returned to the district court so that a record can be made that will lead to the result already reached. It is my impression that the bank will have no difficulty in establishing that the mortgage was a purchase money mortgage. Once those facts are present, the majority opinion demonstrates that the rights of the bank to the premises in question are superior to the equitable interest of the Van Pattens. We have succeeded only in making the case more expensive to the parties and more time consuming for the trial court. In the light of this record, I see no way to avoid that result.