For Attorneys & Legal Professionals

---

A legal-focused overview of the concerns raised in my case.

This page is designed for attorneys, law students, academics, and legal professionals who want a concise, factual breakdown of the procedural, evidentiary, and doctrinal issues in Devney v. Laramie Plains Properties.

My intent is not to criticize the judiciary or speculate about motives, but to highlight the aspects of the ruling and testimony that raise legitimate legal questions — the kind lawyers naturally analyze.

If you’re reading this as a legal professional:

Yes, you’re seeing what you think you’re seeing.

1. Lack of Credibility Evaluation in a Bench Trial

The judge explicitly stated:

“I did not have to judge the credibility of the witnesses…”

Despite conflicting accounts regarding:

• what was said at the door
• whether I indicated I was not decent
• how long the workers waited
• how long they remained after being asked to leave
• what they observed upon entering

Most attorneys will recognize that credibility assessment is foundational in a bench trial where testimony conflicts on material facts.

2. Reliance on Forced Digital Consent via a Glitch

The ruling acknowledges that the maintenance portal forced tenants to consent due to a software flaw.

This forced-consent checkbox was treated as meaningful consent — even though:

• tenants could not file maintenance requests without checking “yes”
• no alternative method for declining entry existed
• the lease did not clarify how forced-consent interacts with privacy expectations

Legal professionals will immediately see the implications for contract formation, waiver, and unconscionability.

3. The Lease Interpreted as Granting Complete, No-Notice Entry

The ruling states:

“The lease clearly gave LPP the ability to enter at any time without notice.”

This broad interpretation raises questions regarding:

• statutory “reasonableness”
• the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
• public policy
• the relationship between contract and privacy rights
• how far a lease can go in waiving meaningful consent

Many attorneys will see this as an unusually expansive reading of landlord rights.

4. Application of the “Sophisticated Renter” Label

The ruling describes me as:

“A sophisticated renter with meaningful choice.”

Because I had rented in other states and cities.

This is legally unusual.

Most jurisdictions avoid reducing tenant protections based on prior renting experience.

Attorneys will recognize this as a stretch with unclear doctrinal basis.

5. Questions Surrounding Outrage and Vulnerability

Despite:

• entering my home without notice
• encountering me naked under a blanket
• remaining after being told I was “not decent”
• staying in the room while I was vulnerable

…the court found nothing “extreme or outrageous.”

Attorneys familiar with torts will see that this raises serious questions about threshold, foreseeability, and fact-finder discretion.

6. Testimony Provided Without Firsthand Knowledge

Key testimony came from a leasing manager who:

• was not present for the incident
• could not explain core lease mechanisms
• could not identify tenant rights outside the lease
• frequently framed her understanding with “I think,” “I believe,” and “I assume”

The ruling did not address the limited weight of that testimony.

Attorneys will recognize the disconnect between testimonial weight and testimonial usefulness.

7. A Ruling That Appears Outcome-Driven

Several attorneys and legal readers have noted privately that the ruling reads as though:

• the conclusion was reached first,
• and the reasoning was assembled to support it.

While I make no claim as to motive, I’ve organized:

• transcript quotes
• contradictions
• procedural issues
• statutory context

so legal professionals can reach their own conclusions.

If You’re an Attorney Reading This

I welcome:

• perspective
• critique
• clarifying questions
• legal insights
• or even, “I’ve never seen a ruling like this.”

No obligation — just openness.

You can reach me any time at: wyomingreform@gmail.com