dissenting.
I dissent. I would reverse. Summary judgment was granted appellees, depriving appellant of her day in court. Appellant has a right to be heard. Summary judgment may only be granted when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and * * * the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
W.R.C.P. 56(c). All of the facts here are in dispute. The summary judgment is contrary to our well-established and oft-repeated rule: “Summary judgments are appropriate only in cases in which there exists no question of material fact requiring resolution at trial.” Kirby Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. Independence Partnership No. One, 634 P.2d 342, 345 (Wyo.1981). See also Zmijewski v. Wright, 809 P.2d 280, 282 (Wyo.1991). “The issues presented should be resolved at trial where the disputed issues of fact can be fully developed and the fact finder can then decide what the true facts *841really are.” Deepwater Investments, Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1112 (10th Cir.1991).
This dispute in facts was resolved in a trial by affidavit. The court essentially states that the two sons are strangers without knowledge of how the transaction came about; that there was not intimidation, undue influence, unfair, dishonest dealings with the mother; and that the deed to this lady’s home, to everyone’s surprise, just fell on their doorstep. Life in the real world tells us otherwise. This was a family affair in which all were involved. Appellant’s sons were not strangers to the transaction; not innocent, bona fide nonparticipants in this unconscionable taking of appellant’s home. “Neither the trial court nor the supreme court [has] a duty nor a right on a motion for summary judgment to resolve any existing issues of fact.” Madison v. Marlatt, 619 P.2d 708, 712 (Wyo.1980). This appellant should have her day in court.