Alan G. Moats and Chleo I. Moats v. Professional Assistance, LLC, d/b/a Summit Title Services, Kuzma Success Realty, and P. Olen Snider, Jr.
319 P.3d 892
Wyo.2014Background
- Alan and Chleo Moats sold 850 acres in May 2004 and intended to reserve mineral rights; closing was handled by Summit Title (Professional Assistance, LLC) with employee Dawn West acting as closer.
- The purchase offers and listing expressly excluded mineral rights; Summit prepared the warranty deeds but the recorded deeds did not reserve minerals.
- At closing West told the Moats the deeds were corrected to reserve minerals after briefly leaving the room; the Moats signed without reading the deeds.
- About six years later the Moats learned from a landman that the minerals had been conveyed; subsequent efforts to reconvey failed and intervening transfers complicated reformation.
- The Moats sued Summit, Summit’s general counsel P. Olen Snider, Jr., and broker Kuzma Success Realty for negligence, malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, holding the Moats failed to exercise due diligence under the discovery rule in Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-107; the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed as to Summit and Snider and affirmed as to Kuzma, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Moats exercised due diligence under Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-107 to delay accrual of malpractice/negligence claims | Moats contend a jury should decide whether West’s assurances that the deeds were corrected excused immediate discovery and constituted reasonable reliance | Defendants argue the deeds were simple, the Moats had opportunity to read them, and failure to read bars tolling; summary judgment appropriate | Reversed as to Summit and Snider—genuine issues of material fact exist about due diligence; affirmed as to Kuzma (no agency link to Summit’s alleged misrepresentations) |
| Whether misrepresentations by Summit’s agent can toll limitations as to non-agent third party (Kuzma) | Moats say Summit’s assurances concealed the error and delayed discovery | Defendants argue a third party’s actions do not toll limitations absent agency relationship | Affirmed for Kuzma—no agency shown so Summit’s conduct does not extend limitations as to Kuzma |
| Whether Snider met his initial burden for summary judgment | Moats argue limited record about Snider’s role prevents summary judgment | Snider argued lack of involvement or prima facie evidence of liability | Reversed for Snider—record does not establish prima facie entitlement to judgment |
| Whether equitable reformation/rescission was barred by delay | Moats argue equitable remedies remain viable given Summit’s conduct | Defendants stress long delay and subsequent conveyances that impede reformation | Court did not resolve reformation on summary judgment; factual issues remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney Holding Corp. v. Terry, 270 P.3d 662 (Wyo. 2012) (mineral rights transfer requires express reservation)
- Gilstrap v. June Eisele Trust, 106 P.3d 858 (Wyo. 2005) (same principle on mineral reservation)
- Mendoza v. Gonzales, 204 P.3d 995 (Wyo. 2009) (signing without reading binds the signer)
- Schmidt v. Killmer, 201 P.3d 1121 (Wyo. 2009) (summary judgment affirmed where parties were fully apprised and did not allege fraud)
- Town of Glenrock v. Abadie, 259 P.2d 766 (Wyo. 1953) (long delay in seeking reformation can bar relief when grantor did not read deed)
- Heimer v. Antelope Valley Improvement, 226 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2010) (application of discovery rule is mixed question of law and fact)
- Daniel v. State, 189 P.3d 859 (Wyo. 2008) (due diligence is a factual inquiry)