Glenn J. Gumpel and Merrily Gumpel, Trustees of the Glenn and Merrily Gumpel Family Trust Dated October 8, 2001 v. Copperleaf Homeowners Association, Inc., a Wyoming Non-Profit Corporation Roderick Fuller and Kathleen A. Fuller, Trustees of the Roderick and Kathleen Fuller Family Trust Dated January 16, 1997 Mooncrest Ranch A/K/A Mooncrest Ranch, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation Successor By Merger To Rocking M Ranch, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2017 WY 46
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Two neighboring developments: China Wall Tract (Section 15 north of the North Fork of the Shoshone River) with ~600 acres and multiple owners, and Copperleaf Subdivision to the south with Tract O (~292 acres) dedicated as open space and extending into Section 15.
- Original 1980 covenants for Section 15 limited access to private bridge/roads; in 2005 multiple Section 15 owners and the Copperleaf developer executed new 2005 Covenants (recorded 2006) replacing the 1980 Covenants.
- Article VI of the 2005 Covenants grants access/easements in the China Wall Tract to "owners" (defined as record owners of parcels in the Tract) and to their "families, invitees, agents, employees, heirs, successors and assigns;" it also reserves recreational access "along the China Wall" and limits National Forest access to building-lot owners.
- Wells Fargo acquired title to Tract O by sheriff’s deed after foreclosure and designated Copperleaf HOA and its members as invitees of Wells Fargo under the 2005 Covenants, prompting dispute with China Wall owners (including Gumpel Trust).
- District court granted multiple rounds of summary judgment: held (1) 2005 Covenants clear and Wells Fargo (as owner of Tract O) is an "owner" with access rights except National Forest access; (2) Wells Fargo may permit invitees (including Copperleaf HOA/members) to use its easements, but the court later stated invitees had the same rights as owners; (3) reformation claim and challenge to recreational easement description were denied. Gumpel Trust appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gumpel Trust) | Defendant's Argument (Copperleaf/Wells Fargo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2005 Covenants (access/easements) are ambiguous and should be interpreted with extrinsic evidence to restrict Tract O/HOA access outside Tract O | Covenants ambiguous given negotiation history, drafting gaps, and local conditions; extrinsic evidence shows parties intended to restrict Tract O and exclude Copperleaf access | Covenants are clear and unambiguous on their face; owners (including Tract O owner) have the listed access rights; extrinsic evidence not admissible to rewrite covenants | Court: Covenants are clear; read four corners; Wells Fargo (Tract O) is an "owner" with access rights except National Forest; extrinsic evidence not used to alter plain terms. Affirmed. |
| Whether covenants should be reformed for mutual mistake to limit Tract O access | Parties intended to restrict Tract O but drafting omitted that restriction; reformation appropriate based on prior negotiations/letters | No clear and convincing evidence of a mutual mistake or final agreement to restrict Tract O rights | Court: Reformation denied — plaintiffs failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake. |
| Whether Copperleaf HOA and its members independently have rights under 2005 Covenants to access China Wall Tract | HOA/members should be excluded; invitee definition should be narrow (premises-liability meaning) and HOA not qualify | HOA/members may be invitees of an owner and, if permitted, may use owner’s easements; definition of invitee is ordinary (an invited person) | Court: HOA/members may be invitees; ordinary meaning of invitee applies; but modified to clarify invitees do not have full owner-equivalent rights and cannot automatically confer invitee rights to others. |
| Whether recreational-easement description (“recreational lands” and “hiking and riding trails along the China Wall”) is void under Wyo. Stat. § 34‑1‑141 for insufficient description | Description is vague and cannot locate the easement (no precise distance/defined trails) | China Wall formation is locatable; "along the China Wall" is a sufficient, context-appropriate description for this recreational easement | Court: Description adequate under the statute and controlling precedent; easement upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimer v. Cook, 2016 WY 29 (Wy. 2016) (covenants are contracts and interpreted under contract principles)
- Thornock v. PacifiCorp, 2016 WY 93 (Wy. 2016) (extrinsic evidence permissible only to define specialized or technical contract terms)
- Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney Gen., 2009 WY 143 (Wy. 2009) (easement description need not be a survey; sufficiency depends on nature of encumbrance)
- Markstein v. Countryside I, L.L.C., 2003 WY 122 (Wy. 2003) (location description sufficient where agreement confines use to a particular region and exhibits/sketches aid identification)
- Wolter v. Equitable Res. Energy Co., Western Region, 979 P.2d 948 (Wyo. 1999) (ambiguity permitting extrinsic evidence must be found within the document itself)