BEDESSEM v. Cunningham
272 P.3d 310
Wyo.2012Background
- Bedessem, as trustee, seeks enforcement of covenants granting access rights across Cunninghams' Tract I to Tract II.
- Original plan involved Buttes development with a looped road (Butte Loop) and BLM right-of-way, later revised to terminate the loop.
- Tract II (Bedessems) had a north cross-Tracts III/IV easement granted in 1993; Tract I (Cunninghams) had access that did not cross II.
- BLM revision in 1995 terminated the Butte Loop; the grant of access effectively limited southern access.
- Cunninghams allowed Tract II access via Tract I for years; later insisted on northern access only after 2003 Covenant amendments.
- Bedessem purchased Tract II in 2008 and sued in 2010, arguing implied easement or covenant-based access; district court granted summary judgment for Cunninghams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bedessem has standing to enforce the covenants. | Bedessem argues individual enforcement permitted. | Cunninghams contend only ACC may enforce covenants. | No; ACC has sole enforcement right, Bedessem lacks standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargas Ltd. P'ship v. Four "H" Ranches Architectural Control Comm., 202 P.3d 1045 (Wy. 2009) (architectural control committee has enforcement power; ‘sole right’ context discussed)
- Goglio v. Star Valley Ranch Ass'n, 48 P.3d 1072 (Wy. 2002) (contract interpretation of covenants; de novo review)
- McLain v. Anderson, 933 P.2d 468 (Wy. 1997) (sole and exclusive right to enforce covenants; distinct from standing issue here)
- Calvary Temple v. Taylor, 288 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.App.1956) (general principle on enforceability of covenants when enforcement reserved)