Share
Wyoming's highest court has considered whether a landowner's attorneys improperly interfered with a tenant's right to purchase the property when the attorneys purchased landowner's ranch.
Lester and Kathleen Gore ("Tenants") began leasing a 2,339-acre property ("Ranch") from Ross Donaldson in 1973, using the property as a cattle ranch as well as living on the property. The Tenants last signed a lease for the Ranch in 1993. The Tenants usually paid their rent in one lump sum, mostly after they had sold their cattle for the season. Over the years, some of the leases that the Tenants signed contained an option for the Tenants to purchase the Ranch.
In 1996, Virginia Gibb was the majority owner of the Ranch, with two of her nephews holding minority ownership interests (collectively, the "Owners"). In August 1996, the Tenants asked Gibb if she was interested in selling the Ranch to them. At this point, the Tenants had paid no rent for 1996. After Gibb told the Tenants that she was not interested in selling them the Ranch, a discussion ensued about the parties entering into a new lease agreement. The Owners' attorneys ("Attorneys") prepared two written leases for the Tenants, containing provisions for a one-year term and one version also provided the Tenants the option to purchase the Ranch for $200/acre. The Tenants rejected both of those leases and had their attorney prepare a lease, which was rejected by the Owners. This concluded the lease negotiations between the parties.
In 1997, one of the Owners went to the Attorneys for an unrelated legal problem. During the meeting, there was a discussion about the Attorneys' interest in purchasing the Ranch. The Attorneys then contacted the other Owners, and the parties reached an agreement for the Attorneys to purchase the Ranch for $350,000. The sale closed in April 1997. The Attorneys also received an assignment from the Owners for the Tenants unpaid 1996 rent. The Attorneys began their collection efforts for the 1996 rent from the Tenants, and in June 1997, the Tenants bought the property from the Attorneys for $600,000. The Tenants then combined the Ranch with a neighboring property and sold the properties together for $1,400,000, of which $1,100,000 was allocated to the Ranch. The Tenants then brought a lawsuit against the Attorneys alleging tortious interference with a contractual relationship and business expectancy. The trial court ruled in favor of the Attorneys, awarding the Attorneys their costs as well. The Tenants appealed.
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The court considered the tortious interference with a contractual relationship and business expectancy allegations. To allege tortious interference with a contractual relationship, a party must first allege that an actual contract existed between the parties. Since there was no lease agreement between the Tenants and the Owners, the Tenants could not allege tortious interference with a contract. Similarly, to claim a tortious interference with a business expectancy, a party must show that the other party somehow interfered with another's ability to establish a contractual relationship. Again, there was no evidence that the Attorneys had interfered with the lease negotiations between the Owners and the Tenants. Simply because the Tenants had hoped to enter into a contract with the Owners was not enough to support either cause of action, as the evidence showed that the parties had simply failed to reach an agreement during negotiations on a new lease. Thus, the court affirmed the rulings in favor of the Attorneys by the trial court.
Gore v. Sherard, 50 P.3d 705 (Wyo. 2002).