Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shores v. Bucklin

January 22, 2009

DAROLD SHORES AND KATHLEEN SHORES, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),
v.
ROY BUCKLIN AND ANNE BUCKLIN, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS).



Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

[¶1] Appellants Darold and Kathleen Shores ("the Shores") appeal from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of appellees Roy and Anne Bucklin ("the Bucklins") quieting title to a parcel of land in Big Horn County, Wyoming. The court ruled that summary judgment was proper, in that the Shores did not have evidence to support a "color of title" theory. Also, there was not satisfaction of the 10-year period for adverse possession. Finally, pursuant to the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissal was proper as a sanction for failure to comply with the scheduling order. This appeal followed.

ISSUES

[¶2] The Shores raise two issues on appeal:

1. Are the Bucklins entitled to a judgment in this case in that the Shores, in seeking to quiet title under a claim of adverse possession, did not elect and plead the theory under which they claim the adverse possession?

2. Is judgment to the [Bucklins] the proper remedy in this case for the failure to comply with the Scheduling Order?

The Bucklins frame the issues as follows:

1. The court should summarily affirm for failure to designate or cite to any record on appeal as well as numerous other instances of disregarding the requirements of the [Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure].

2. There was no reasonable basis for an appeal because WRE 103 explicitly bars [the Shores] from assigning error when [the Shores] failed to make a proper offer of proof of the substance of the excluded testimony and exhibits.

3. There was no reasonable ground for this appeal because the issues are moot after the district court's subsequent rulings and findings, which the Shores neither opposed nor appealed and which are now law of the case and collateral estoppel.

4. Even apart from the foregoing, there was no reasonable grounds for this appeal

5. Attorney fees should be awarded under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.