Jerry Herling v. Wyoming Machinery Co., a Wyoming Corporation
2013 WY 82
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- JHCI rented Wyoming Machinery equipment under a revolving credit agreement; Herling signed personal guaranties for JHCI’s performance.
- JHCI began defaulting on payments in 2008; Tetra Tech withheld retainage funds, and Wyoming Machinery secured lien-like remedies.
- JHCI executed an assignment of its retainage to Wyoming Machinery to cover the outstanding balance, while preserving that actual payment would come from Tetra Tech or JHCI.
- In 2010–2011, Tetra Tech and Safeco settled with Wyoming Machinery for $500,000; Wyoming Machinery then moved for summary judgment against Herling on the guaranties.
- District court held no genuine issues of material fact and entered judgment against Herling for $1,383,472.93, but the record raised questions about the ownership of the retained funds and the effect of the settlement.
- This appeal arises from the district court’s rulings on the release arguments, settlement impacts, and the correct amount of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did JHCI’s retainage assignment release Herling from guaranties? | Herling claims release by assignment language and silence about release. | Assignment is not a release; no language releasing Herling. | Assignment did not release Herling from guaranties. |
| Did the settlement between Tetra Tech and Wyoming Machinery release Herling from guaranties? | Settlement coupled with assignment creates release of Herling. | Settlement only dismisses claims against Tetra Tech/Safeco; not Herling/JHCI. | Settlement did not release Herling from guaranties. |
| Are there genuine issues of material fact about the correct judgment amount against Herling? | Credit for $500,000 settlement should be available against the judgment. | Ownership of the $500,000 and its relation to the judgment is disputed; possible double recovery concerns. | Remand to determine ownership of funds and correct amount; not final on amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redland v. Redland, 288 P.3d 1173 (Wyo. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment; contract interpretation)
- Knight v. TCB Const. & Design, LLC, 248 P.3d 178 (Wy. 2011) (contract interpretation; de novo review of unambiguous terms)
- Laird v. Laird, 597 P.2d 463 (Wyo. 1979) (signer presumed to have read and understood contract terms)
- Creel v. L & L, Inc., 287 P.3d 729 (Wyo. 2012) (conclusory affidavits insufficient to create genuine issue of fact)
- Dorr v. Smith, Keller & Associates, 238 P.3d 549 (Wyo. 2010) (double recovery; credits against judgments; equity controls)
- Mark E. Dowell Irrevocable Trust #1, 290 P.3d 357 (Wyo. 2012) (use of extrinsic context to interpret otherwise unambiguous language)