Boot Ranch appeals land dispute with
Wagonhound to Wyoming Supreme Court
By Jackson Day
Published in the Douglas Budget Feb. 14, 2024
Lawyers representing Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company, LLC, and Boot Ranch, LLC, have been disputing over two parcels of land, totaling about 40 acres, southwest of Douglas since June 2020 when Wagonhound first made a complaint against Boot Ranch.
After the case was argued in June of last year, Wyoming Eighth Judicial District Court Judge F. Scott Peasley issued a verdict on Nov. 17, granting the land to Wagonhound. Boot Ranch’s lawyers are now planning to appeal Peasley’s decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court, according to a motion to stay the case which they submitted on Dec. 20.
Eric Rusnak, a lawyer partnered at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, provided the Budget with insight into the situation. While Rusnak is not personally involved with this particular case, he defended another ranch against Wagonhound in Little Med. Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D’Elia, 2019 WY 103, which also went to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
“There have been eight lawsuits filed by Wagonhound against the Cross family ranches (who own Boot Ranch). The first one started over the Burnett Ranch (in Albany County) and that started in 2000,” Rusnak explained. “That’s how I got involved.”
Rusnak explained that when Peasley heard the ongoing case last summer, there was no jury.
“There are some cases that are just heard by the judge and there’s no jury. This is one of those cases. This is because it doesn’t involve monetary damages; no one’s asking for money here. They’re just asking that the court deem this property to belong to Wagonhound or Boot Ranch,” Rusnak explained. “So rather than the jury going back and deliberating and then coming out and reading their verdict,the judge (writes) a written opinion.”
Peasley’s verdict contained 95 findings of fact which outlined the situation. The findings date back to 1934 when the Cross family first acquired real property known as Tomahawk Ranch.
According to the findings, the Cross family owned and possessed the Boot Ranch and the Tomahawk Ranch as of 1974 and did so until on “March 30, 2007, Robert and Michelle Cross sold the Tomahawk Ranch to Diamond Ranches, LLC, an entity owned by Diemer True.”
When the sale was made, Deimer was “provided multiple copies of a map that included the Subject property as part of the Tomahawk Ranch” and, according to the findings, later on June 2, 2020, Diamond Ranches, LLC, “conveyed the Tomahawk Ranch to Wagonhound.”
Wagonhound then discovered that “the Subject Property, located on the opposite side of the LaPrele Reservoir, was owned by Tomahawk and was being occupied by Boot Ranch and the Cross Family,” according to judge’s findings.
Then on June 25, 2020, Wagonhound filed the official complaint against Boot Ranch.
In his verdict, Peasley quoted Cook v Eddy, 2008 W Y 111, writing “(A)n adverse possession claim creates several shifting presumptions,” as a means of prefacing that in cases like this one, the burden of proof may be passed back and forth between the plaintiff and defendants.
In his ruling, Peasley explained that, at first, Wagonhound would be required to prove they have a legal possession of the land. In this case, “the parties agree that Wagonhound is the title holder.”
Because all parties involved agreed the land is titled to Wagonhound, the burden was passed to Boot Ranch, who then had to make a “prima facie of adverse possession.” Although there are many legal technicalities, in some cases this may be thought of as a claim to squatters’ rights.
Peasley outlined that in order to claim adverse possession, Boot Ranch must prove that: 1) they had actual possession of the land, meaning they used the land; 2) their use of the land was open and notorious, meaning the land’s owner was aware; 3) they had exclusive possession of the land; 4) they used the land for at least 10 years; and 5) the possession was hostile, meaning it is clear to the owner they may lose their land.
According to Peasley’s verdict, Boot Ranch sufficiently proved all of these claims, as Boot Ranch had been using the land since at least 1984, had held family gatherings on the land, had grazed livestock on the land, had granted hunters permission to hunt on the land and had a fence built around the land.
After Boot Ranch sufficiently proved their claim of adverse possession, the burden was passed back to Wagonhound to “explain or rebut the claim by showing the use was permissive,” meaning Wagonhound had to prove Boot Ranch had previously been authorized to use the land, but is not now allowed to us it.
Wagonhound claimed that the fence was built as a convenience and therefore Tomahawk Ranch had, from the beginning, only been allowing Boot Ranch to use the land out of courtesy.
In his verdict Peasley outlined that “the placement, type and purpose of a fence are important factors in adverse possession cases.” After elaborating on this by quoting from a number of other cases and reiterating facts of the case such as the fact that the fence did not follow the property line and does not run straight, Peasley deemed “the court finds Wagonhoud rebutted Boot Ranch’s prima facie evidence of adverse possession by showing that Boot Ranch’s use of the property has been permissive.”
The burden was then turned, once again, back to Boot Ranch to prove the use was not permissive. Peasley wrote, “(T)he fence of convenience, the sporadic grazing in isolated areas of the Subject Property, the limited recreational use that often occurs at times when the Subject Property is inundated with water, and the lack of a definitive boundary line on large portions of the Subject Property renders the use of the Subject Property by Boot Ranch permissive.”
Peasley ultimately ruled that “there is a presumption in favor of the record holder.” Peasley ordered t hat t he land’s title would be granted to Wagonhound and Boot Ranch has “no estate, right, title or interest in the real property.”
The court was ready to schedule a jury trial on claims from Wagonhound for ejectment and trespass against Boot Ranch.
No further trials have taken place, however, as on Dec. 20, Boot Ranch motioned for the court to “stay further proceedings” until after they had the opportunity to appeal the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Peasley granted the stay Dec. 29, meaning the verdict is efficiently paused until the Wyoming Supreme Court provides their ruling.
The Wyoming Supreme Court has not set a court date, but Rusnak expects the case will be presented before the court sometime in the next year.
“You probably won’t see a final decision until later this year because of the way the Wyoming Supreme Cour t works,” Rusnak explained. “Wyoming’s a little different than other states in that, because it has such a small population, all cases that are appealed go right to the Supreme Court. There is no other court – there’s no intermediate court and, unlike the United States Supreme Court which chooses which cases to hear, the Wyoming Supreme Court hears every case that’s appealed.”
Boot Ranch lawyers have not clarified on what grounds they are appealing this case.
The Budget contacted the lawyers for both parties who oversee this case, but neither responded.