Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Cash v. Granite Springs Retreat Ass'n, Inc.

Supreme Court of Wyoming
614 F.3d 400 (Wyoming 2011)


Facts

In the 1970s, Abraham Lorenz orally agreed to sell property to Deward H. Miller. Lorenz conveyed the property to Miller in two parcels. The first parcel was conveyed on August 14, 1972. It became known as Granite Springs Retreat, First Filing (First Filing). The second parcel was conveyed in March 1977, and became known as Granite Springs Retreat, Second Filing (Second Filing). On August 4, 1975, Miller applied for the subdivision of both parcels. The subdivision was to contain sixty lots and was to be known as Granite Springs Retreat. An environmental impact report was also prepared. The report indicated that certain covenants would attach to all tracts within the subdivision. Miller filed a plat for the First Filing on October 1, 1976. On October 4, 1976, Miller filed a Declaration of Protective Covenants governing the Granite Spring Retreat. Miller subsequently acquired legal title to the Second Filing and filed the plat for the Second Filing on August 11, 1977. Miller later conveyed the entire property to Happy Jack Stable & Lounge, Inc., a corporation owned by Lorenz and himself. On February 23, 1978, Miller filed an Amended Declaration of Protective Covenants (Amended Covenants). Miller signed the Amended Covenants on behalf of Granite Spring Retreats, but did not reference Happy Jack Stable & Lounge, Inc. as the proper owner of the property. On July 29, 1983, Miller filed an Affidavit of Intention stating that he intended the covenants to apply to all lots in both filings. The owners of the developed lots subsequently joined to form a homeowner’s association known as the Granite Springs Retreat Association (GSRA) (defendant). In February 2009, Cash, Maturi, McCune, Nelson, and Hilliker (plaintiffs) brought suit against the GSRA, arguing that the covenants did not restrict the lots in the Second Filing. The district court granted the GSRA summary judgment.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Kite, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.