James F. Gould Iv, Individually, and Erin Gould, Individually, and J.G., a Minor, By and Through James F. Gould Iv, Her Father and Next Friend, and J.G., a Minor, By and Through James F. Gould Iv, His Father and Next Friend v. Daniel Ochsner, Individually, and Flying River Ranch Llc, and Yu Land and Cattle, Llc, 354 P.3d 965

Background

James F. Gould IV (and family) lived and worked on Flying River Ranch under various oral and written arrangements with owner Daniel Ochsner; disputes arose after Goulds left in 2012.
Core disputed items: (1) ownership of ~60 head of cattle (and offspring), and (2) ownership/possession of the JF cattle brand, which Goulds transferred by bill of sale in 2009 but contend was only a temporary transfer to preserve federal grazing permits.
Goulds sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud; defendants counterclaimed for items allegedly removed by Goulds.
At bench trial the district court denied all Gould claims and defendants’ counterclaims; Goulds appealed, asserting errors as to cattle ownership, brand conversion, denial of a Rule 15(b) amendment to add promissory estoppel, and denial of enforcement of an asserted settlement agreement.
Trial evidence was contested on cattle facts; brand-transfer testimony (Goulds’ witnesses and a ranch hand) was unrefuted that the brand transfer was temporary and would be returned. Parties exchanged settlement-related e-mails in Feb 2012; plaintiffs claim a signed draft constituted a binding settlement.
Supreme Court: affirmed district court on cattle ownership, Rule 15(b) denial, and no enforceable settlement; reversed as to conversion of the JF brand and remanded for relief on the brand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goulds proved ownership of the disputed cattle (and offspring)	Goulds say Ochsner gifted 60 cows to Gould family (then temporarily signed back) and thus Goulds retained title and are owed return/value	Ochsner says he gave, then received cows back via bill of sale (ownership vested in Flying River Ranch); no requests made by Goulds after 2008	Affirmed for Ochsner — district court’s factual finding that Goulds failed to prove ownership was not clearly erroneous
Whether Goulds are entitled to return of the JF brand (conversion)	Goulds say 2009 brand transfer was temporary to satisfy permit requirements and Ochsner promised to return it; conversion when he refused and sold cattle	Ochsner relied on the bill of sale transferring brand title to Ranch	Reversed — unrefuted evidence showed temporary transfer/constructive bailment; Goulds proved conversion and are entitled to return of the brand
Whether district court abused discretion by denying W.R.C.P. 15(b) amendment to add promissory estoppel	Goulds say evidence at trial (promises, Saratoga property purchase, house plans) tried the estoppel claim by implication and amendment should be allowed	Ochsner contends evidence did not put him on clear notice of an estoppel claim; late disclosure prejudiced defense; motion to dismiss served as objection	Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion: insufficient evidence at trial of detrimental reliance and prejudice to defendants from late notice
Whether e-mail exchange produced a binding settlement agreement	Goulds say signed draft emailed Feb 3 constituted mutual assent and binding settlement	Ochsner says material terms (vacate date; timing of brand transfer) remained unresolved; signed draft was expressly subject to correction; no meeting of minds	Affirmed — district court reasonably found no meeting of the minds and no enforceable settlement

Key Cases Cited

Forbes v. Forbes, 341 P.3d 1041 (Wyo. 2015) (standard of review for bench trial findings)
Redland v. Redland, 288 P.3d 1173 (Wyo. 2012) (appellate treatment of prevailing party evidence after bench trial)
Harber v. Jensen, 97 P.3d 57 (Wyo. 2004) (deference to trial court factfinding)
Frost v. Eggeman, 638 P.2d 141 (Wyo. 1981) (elements and measure of conversion)
Cross v. Berg Lumber Co., 7 P.3d 922 (Wyo. 2000) (accrual of conversion claim when permissive use ends)
Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55 P.3d 1219 (Wyo. 2002) (constructive bailment and bailee duty to return property)
Moore v. Moore, 835 P.2d 1148 (Wyo. 1992) (bailee’s duty and demand requirement before conversion action)
Satterfield v. Sunny Day Resources, Inc., 581 P.2d 1386 (Wyo. 1978) (conversion burden of proof)
Wyoming Sawmills v. Morris, 756 P.2d 774 (Wyo. 1988) (when parties intend writing to be final; enforceability of agreements reached before signing)