Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's Inc.
2011 WY 102
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Magin purchased Lot 34 in Solitude in 1997; covenants restricted fences, brush, and structures and were enforced by the Solitude Site Committee.
- Solitude filed a complaint on Feb. 4, 2008 alleging covenant violations by Magin and seeking to recover its incurred attorney fees.
- Solitude’s original law firm withdrew; Glenn Ford of a firm joined Solitude on Sept. 5, 2008; Moore (Magin’s prior attorney) and Ford’s firm had overlapping representation.
- Magin moved to disqualify Ford due to a conflict of interest; she claimed the conflict wasn’t waived in writing; the district court denied the disqualification without a hearing.
- After a sequence of rulings, the district court granted summary judgment for Solitude on covenant-violation issues and awarded attorney fees; Magin appealed challenging disqualification, continuance/extension of time to respond, the summary judgment on covenants, and the attorney-fees award.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held a conflict existed and the motion to disqualify was untimely; it found no abuse in denying the continuance/request for more discovery; it upheld summary judgment on covenant violations, but reversed the attorney-fee award to the extent it included fees for the conflicted counsel and required segregation of recoverable fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification for conflict of interest abused? | Magin contends disqualification should have been granted. | Solitude argues no abuse; waiver ineffective; timing moot. | Yes, conflict existed; dispute about timeliness but decision upheld on timeliness basis. |
| Continuance/extension to respond abused? | Magin sought more time to respond and to conduct discovery. | Solitude acted within discretion; Magin had ample time and did not show prejudice. | No abuse; district court did not err in denying continuance/time extension. |
| Summary judgment on covenant violations proper? | Magin asserts issues of fact remain about covenants and their application. | Solitude established prima facie validity and violations; Magin did not present genuine fact issues. | Yes, Solitude was entitled to summary judgment on covenant validity and violations. |
| Attorney-fees award proper? | Fees related to conflict should not be recoverable; segregation required. | Fees for enforcing covenants were recoverable; some fees were for conflict work. | Partially reversed; fees attributable to the conflicted counsel were not recoverable; first firm’s fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Langdon, 751 P.2d 344 (Wyo. 1988) (conflict of interest and substantial relation analysis; broad duty to protect confidences)
- Simpson Performance Prods., Inc. v. Robert W. Horn, P.C., 92 P.3d 283 (Wyo. 2004) (four elements for Rule 1.9 conflict; substantial relation requires hearing when nonfrivolous allegations exist)
- Jacobson v. Cobbs, 160 P.3d 654 (Wyo. 2007) (discretion in continuance and discovery; limits of Rule 56(f))
- Hatton v. Energy Electric Co., 148 P.3d 8 (Wyo. 2006) (summary judgment standards and burden-shifting in Wyoming)
- Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1983) (timeliness and waiver considerations in conflicts of interest)
- Redd v. Shell Oil Co., 518 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1975) (late-conflict claims and waiver implications)
- Central Milk Producers Coop. v. Sentry Food Stores, Inc., 573 F.2d 988 (8th Cir. 1978) (reasonableness of waiver and avoidance of prejudice)