Berg v. TORRINGTON LIVESTOCK CATTLE CO.
2012 WY 42
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- TLCC filed suit against Bergs on a promissory note secured by collateral; note was assigned to TLCC in June 2010.
- Bergs signed a promissory note in February 2010 for $53,569.60 at 8.25% interest with four annual installments; secured by livestock and equipment.
- First payment due October 1, 2010; Bergs shipped cattle for auction in September 2010 but proceeds were encumbered by TLCC and did not pay.
- TLCC obtained writs of seizure; in December 2010 a jury found Bergs liable for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud; judgment entered January 2011 for $517,635.86; subsequent sale of seized property occurred in February 2011.
- Bergs appealed the judgment but the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution; they then filed a pro se appeal from the summary judgment in the current case.
- Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed the trial court due to deficiencies in Bergs' appellate brief and failure to comply with appellate rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be summarily affirmed for deficient brief | Bergs violated appellate rules, meriting dismissal or summary affirmation | TLCC seeks to uphold trial court without addressing merits due to procedural defects | Yes; the appeal was summarily affirmed for deficient brief and noncompliance with rules |
| Whether summary judgment on the promissory note was proper | TLCC established valid assignment and enforceable note | Bergs contest assignment and defenses to collection | affirmed; no material issues precluded summary judgment |
| Whether the note assignment and collateral application were proper | Assignment valid; collateral can secure the note and satisfy prior judgment | Bergs contend improper application and potential misallocation of proceeds | affirmed; assignment valid and proceeds applied appropriately |
| Whether Bergs' appellate arguments complied with Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure | Briefs improperly complied; procedural flaws warrant dismissal or affirmation | Bergs were entitled to consideration despite pro se status | affirmed; deficient appellate briefing warranted summary affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch v. Pomeroy, 130 P.3d 437 (Wyo. 2006) (deficient briefs may warrant summary affirmance under Rule 1.03)
- Forbis v. Forbis, 203 P.3d 421 (Wyo. 2009) (pro se appellants must provide cogent argument and authority)
- Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967 (Wyo. 1995) (leniency for pro se litigants is limited when rules are blatantly disregarded)
- McElreath v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 901 P.2d 1103 (Wyo. 1995) (discretion in handling deficient appellate filings)