USA Foreclosure Wiki

McTiernan v. Jellis (2013)

3 min read

McTiernan v. Jellis (2013)

Citation: 2013 WY 151, 316 P.3d 1153 · Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming, No. S-13-0109 · Decided: December 11, 2013 · Opinion: Voigt, J.

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the Pacific Reporter (static.case.law, P.3d volume 316), an unofficial host.

Facts

Jellis kept his beefalo herd on McTiernan’s Sheridan County ranch under an unwritten arrangement. After a dispute, McTiernan locked the gates, refused Jellis access, filed a lien statement under W.S. 29-7-101 et seq. for USD 23,875, and fed the cattle until a court ordered their release five months later. A jury found McTiernan liable for conversion (with USD 50,000 punitive damages) and also found him entitled to the lien.

Holding

New trial ordered. “A lien under Chapter 7 of Title 29 is possessory and its existence dependent upon possession of the subject personal property.” One who lawfully holds property under the lien cannot at the same time convert it, so the two verdicts were irreconcilable. Whether the deal was an agistment (possession, lien, no conversion) or a grazing lease (no possession, no lien) was left to the jury on remand.

Reasoning

  • Read together, W.S. 29-7-102 (“retain possession”), 29-7-103 (lien statement must say whether the claimant was in possession or the owner consented) and 29-7-104 (termination on voluntary surrender) require possession; lien statutes are strictly construed.
  • The court traced the rule through Fein (1890), Turner v. Horton (1910) and Rocky Mountain Turbines v. 660 Syndicate (1981).
  • It narrowed Smith v. Lewis Auto Body (2011): a party need not retain possession after filing a lien statement under § 29-7-102(c), but must have had initial possession.
  • A claimant without possession is not without a remedy: it may sue for damages.

Practical impact

  • Buyers at lien sales: a chapter 7 lien sale by someone who never had lawful possession rests on no lien; ask how the lienor came to hold the goods.
  • Agisters and ranchers: a pasture lease, as opposed to agistment, gives no lien (see also Panhandle Feeders v. C & D Enterprises, 2000).
  • Owners: wrongful detention under a claimed lien can support conversion and punitive damages.

Good-law status

Still good law as of 2026-10-17. The decision applied the pre-2011 numbering of the lien-statement statute (former W.S. 29-1-301, now 29-1-312).

Rechecked 2026-10-18 against the full CAP opinion: Bates v. Chicago Lumber Co. of Omaha, 2016 WY 58, 375 P.3d 732 (read in full from CAP), follows its rule that lien statutes are strictly construed; other later citing decisions located through CourtListener were not read. Chapter 7 text is unchanged in the 2026 compiled title. Not a commercial citator check.

Applies in →

wyoming · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · rocky-mountain-turbines-v-660-syndicate-1981 · smith-v-lewis-auto-body-2011 · panhandle-feeders-v-c-and-d-enterprises-2000

Graph View

Backlinks