357 P.3d 1166
Wyo.2015Background
- In 2009 Del Bartel and Dale Thurgood (and their company High Desert, LLC) sued David Fisher and others over an unfulfilled real estate purchase agreement and alleged $25,000 earnest-money issues.
- Fisher answered and later filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy (June 2013); Appellants filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy seeking nondischargeability.
- The Wyoming district court dismissed the state action on September 5, 2014, noting the bankruptcy stay and that the matter was being resolved in bankruptcy; Appellants did not timely appeal that dismissal.
- The bankruptcy court found Appellants’ claims dischargeable and advised that High Desert (an LLC) must be represented by counsel and that Bartel and Thurgood lacked standing to proceed pro se for the LLC.
- Appellants (pro se) filed post‑dismissal motions in district court under W.R.C.P. 60(b) to modify the dismissal and a renewed summary-judgment motion; the district court denied both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motions | Appellants argued the bankruptcy court’s findings supported relief from dismissal and entitlement to the earnest money | Trustee argued Appellants sought relief against the wrong party, lacked standing, and provided no 60(b) grounds | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion — Appellants failed to show any Rule 60(b) basis and targeted the wrong party |
| Whether Appellants could proceed pro se on behalf of High Desert, LLC | Appellants continued pro se litigation implying they could pursue LLC claims personally | Trustee and bankruptcy court: a corporation/LLC cannot appear pro se and the LLC must be represented by counsel; Bartel and Thurgood lack standing for LLC claims | Court recognized the standing/counsel defect and affirmed denial; High Desert was not properly before the court |
| Whether the bankruptcy stay and trustee substitution affected proper party status | Appellants relied on district-court dismissal and bankruptcy findings to pursue claims | Trustee asserted bankruptcy estate owned Fisher’s claims/assets and the trustee is the real party in interest | Court accepted trustee substitution and held Appellants sued the wrong party; claims belonged to the estate |
| Whether appeal was reasonably grounded | Appellants persisted in litigation despite bankruptcy ruling and district dismissal | Trustee argued appeal lacked reasonable cause and sought fees | Court certified no reasonable cause for appeal and directed trustee to submit attorneys’ fees for award |
Key Cases Cited
- Loran v. Loran, 343 P.3d 400 (Wyo. 2015) (standard of appellate review for denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Drury v. State, 194 P.3d 1017 (Wyo. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Thomas v. State, 131 P.3d 348 (Wyo. 2006) (abuse of discretion precedent cited)
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (corporations/associations cannot appear pro se)