Bellis v. Kersey
2010 WY 138
| Wyo. | 2010Background
- Bellises purchased part of Colemans' ranch, including Section 4 in 1987; boundary dispute arises with Sections 3 and 10 east of Section 4 fenced area.
- In 1997, to facilitate sale of Sections 3 and 10, Bellises and Colemans agree on a diagonal boundary line; Bellises pay $18,000 and receive a deed extending their boundary west to that line.
- Bellises claim the boundary deed intended to settle the entire issue and preserve adverse possession east of the new line; evidence suggests the deed identified a boundary west of the fence.
- Kerseys, Hanks, Howards, and GEF later acquire title to tracts; disputes lead to Kerseys’ suit in 2005 and Bellises’ suit in 2006, consolidated for trial.
- District court conducts bench trial; adverse possession claim denied; ejectment granted to Kerseys; quiet title and trespass issues analyzed; costs awarded to Kerseys were later deemed untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bellis fail to prove adverse possession? | Bellises argue boundary east of deed line was use protected by adverse possession. | Kerseys contend deed boundary foreclosed adverse-possession claim; agreement settled boundary. | Adverse-possession claim fails; ten-year period not proven. |
| Was ejectment proper against Bellises on Kerseys' tract? | Bellises contest possession; no impact on Kerseys’ title. | Kerseys proved record title and possession rights; Bellises interfered. | Ejectment proper; Bellises not in possession. |
| Should Kerseys prevail on quiet title claim? | Bellises contend possession supports quiet title in them. | Kerseys claim adverse interest; possession not proven. | Quiet title in Kerseys reversed; Bellises did not possess disputed portion. |
| Are trespass damages recoverable, and in what amount? | Kerseys entitled to trespass damages for interruption and fencing costs. | Bellises dispute damages; some awarded amounts unsupported. | Actual damages affirmed at $1,300; $1,500 nominal/fence-cost award reversed. |
| Are costs properly awarded to Kerseys? | Rule supports costs to prevailing party. | Certificate of costs not timely filed; improper to award. | Costs awarded improperly; reversed due to untimely certificate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bragg v. Marion, 663 P.2d 505 ((Wyo. 1983)) (possession and ejectment principles for quiet title/ejectment interplay)
- Goodrich v. Stobbe, 908 P.2d 416 ((Wyo. 1995)) (possession-based quiet title framework and ejectment concepts)
- Sagebrush Development, Inc. v. Moehrke, 604 P.2d 198 ((Wyo. 1979)) (nominal damages in absence of proven actual damages (trespass context))
- Ohio Oil Co. v. Wyoming Agency, 179 P.2d 773 ((Wy. 1947)) (section-line boundary and possession considerations (historic boundary law))
- Norris v. United Mineral Products Co., 158 P.2d 679 ((Wyo. 1945)) (equitable basis for quiet title and possessory actions)