John C. McTiernan, Bear Claw Cattle Company, and Gail Sistrunk v. James L. Jellis
2013 WY 151
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Jellis bought a beefalo herd from McTiernan and thereafter kept the herd on McTiernan’s ranch pursuant to an oral, unwritten agreement; parties disputed whether the arrangement was a grazing lease (Jellis) or an agistment (McTiernan).
- After relations soured, McTiernan locked gates April 27, 2011, denied Jellis access, and filed a feeder’s lien under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-7-101 et seq. for alleged unpaid charges; McTiernan then fed and cared for the cattle until court-ordered release five months later.
- Jellis posted bond and recovered the cattle; he sued for release and conversion, alleging McTiernan’s lien was false/groundless and that McTiernan had wrongfully converted the herd.
- At trial the jury awarded Jellis $18,700 for conversion (and $50,000 punitive damages) but also found McTiernan entitled to a lien for feed/pasturage (award $1,900) for Dec. 1, 2010–May 2, 2011.
- McTiernan moved post-trial for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing the verdicts were legally inconsistent; the district court denied relief and entered judgment. The Supreme Court reviews whether the inconsistent special verdict required a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jellis) | Defendant's Argument (McTiernan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory personal-property (feeder’s) lien under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-7-101 et seq. requires possession | Lien is invalid/was knowingly false; McTiernan’s retention and conduct amounted to conversion | McTiernan contends he lawfully possessed the cattle under an agistment and thus was entitled to a possessory lien | A Chapter 7 personal-property lien is possessory; initial possession is required to assert/maintain the lien |
| Whether a verdict finding conversion and also finding entitlement to a possessory lien can stand | Conversion verdict properly reflects wrongful deprivation of Jellis’ rights | A valid lien authorizes retention, so a lien finding is inconsistent with conversion liability | The two jury findings are irreconcilably inconsistent as a matter of law; they cannot be harmonized |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a new trial based on the inconsistent verdict | Jellis did not file a cross-appeal challenging the lien’s validity; the jury’s mixed findings should stand | McTiernan sought new trial because inconsistency required retrial | Court holds the district court abused its discretion in refusing a new trial and remands for a new trial |
| Remedy on remand concerning damages/claims structure | Jellis sought conversion damages and punitive damages | McTiernan sought foreclosure of lien and offset for feed/pasturage; requested clearer verdict form to allow alternative findings | Court instructs remand trial to resolve whether possession/agistment existed (if yes, no conversion; if no, possible conversion and lease damages) and to add verdict form provisions for alternative recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauley v. Newman, 92 P.3d 819 (Wyo. 2004) (standard of review for new trial is abuse of discretion)
- Coones v. FDIC, 894 P.2d 613 (Wyo. 1995) (lien statutes construed strictly; possessory character of lien law)
- Rocky Mountain Turbines, Inc. v. 660 Syndicate, Inc., 623 P.2d 758 (Wyo. 1981) (Wyoming’s personal-property lien is possessory; lien terminates on voluntary surrender of possession)
- Turner v. Horton, 106 P. 688 (Wyo. 1910) (common-law and statutory liens depend on possession; lien lost when possession voluntarily surrendered)
- Nebraska Machinery Co. v. Schoenheit Trucking Co., 301 P.2d 555 (Wyo. 1956) (possession requirement in lien statutes affirmed)
- Smith v. Lewis Auto Body, 255 P.3d 935 (Wyo. 2011) (statutory lien claimant not entitled to accumulate storage charges and lien procedural rules explained)
- Johnson v. Reiger, 93 P.3d 992 (Wyo. 2004) (elements of conversion claim defined)