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.

Graybill v. Lampman

Supreme Court of Wyoming

August 7, 2014

CHRISTOPHER A. GRAYBILL and TAMI J. GRAYBILL, Husband and Wife, CHRISTOPHER A. GRAYBILL, Individually, TAMI J. GRAYBILL, Individually, HENRY PRADO and SIMONA PRADO, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
v.
TRACY E. LAMPMAN and NORMA J. LAMPMAN, Husband and Wife, Appellees (Defendants)

Page 512

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 513

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County. The Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Brian D. Artery and Rex E. Johnson of Sherard, Sherard, Artery & Johnson, Wheatland, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Artery.

Representing Appellees: Nathaniel S. Hibben, Attorney at Law, Torrington, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE[*], DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

OPINION

Page 514

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶1] This is a boundary dispute between property owners in Torrington, Wyoming. Henry and Simona Prado purchased their lot in 1966, mistakenly thinking that it included a strip of land beyond its actual eastern boundary. Roughly twenty years passed as the Prados continued to believe the land was theirs and used it accordingly. In the late 1980s, Tracy and Norma Lampman bought the tract immediately to the east of the Prados that included the narrow parcel, at least according to recorded documents. While the owners of each lot apparently believed they owned the strip of land, another score of years passed before their conflicting beliefs became evident. In 2011, Christopher and Tami Graybill entered into a contract for deed with the Prados, took possession of their lot, and began using the disputed parcel. A 2011 survey established the true property line, and the Lampmans fenced the parcel off, triggering this lawsuit.

[¶2] Appellants claimed to own the disputed area by adverse possession. The district court found that they did not and quieted title in the Lampmans. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ISSUES

[¶3] Appellants present the following issues:

1. Did the trial court err when it held that the Prados did not adversely possess the disputed tract from 1966 to 1976, and if so, did ...

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.