In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of William G. Bratton, Ward, Robert E. Bratton
2014 WY 87
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- William, age 76, has a lifelong mental disability (characterized like Asperger’s) and lives in the family home; a trust/money market account funds his expenses.
- Siblings Robert Bratton and Jeanne Blenkinsop were co-trustees; disputes arose after Bratton transferred $10,000 from William’s account to an account he controlled.
- Bratton petitioned to be guardian; Blenkinsop cross-petitioned for guardian and conservator and filed a signed statement from William consenting to her appointment.
- A guardian ad litem recommended Blenkinsop based on interviews, William’s preference, and concerns about Bratton’s temperament and limited local presence.
- The court set a mediation completion deadline and scheduled a pretrial conference; Bratton, proceeding pro se after his attorney withdrew, failed to file a pretrial memo or attend the pretrial conference.
- The district court sanctioned Bratton by dismissing his guardianship petition and temporarily appointing Blenkinsop; Bratton’s motions to quash and to compel ADR went ungranted, and his petition to disqualify the presiding judge was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bratton) | Defendant's Argument (Blenkinsop / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to appear at pretrial was improper | Dismissal was improper; he should not have been sanctioned without addressing his ADR request or motion to quash | Court argued Rule 16(f)/37 sanctions permit dismissal where party fails to appear or explain absence | Affirmed: dismissal within court’s discretion given notice and no explanation |
| Whether court erred by not ruling on motion to quash proposed dismissal order | Motion to quash should have been considered; sought reversal or reconsideration | Court noted motion was filed before entry of order, but offered no explanation or challenge to dismissal reason | Denial/declination to rule proper; motion did not excuse failure to appear |
| Whether court was required to assign case to mediation and stay proceedings under Rule 40(b) | Rule 40(b) “shall” requires assignment to ADR on request and should have stayed proceedings | Scheduling order set mediation deadline; Rule 40(e) preserves deadlines and hearings; late ADR requests need not disrupt docket | Denied: court not required to order ADR or stay; scheduling discretion upheld |
| Whether presiding judge should have been disqualified for bias | Judge’s rulings and statements reflect bias and prejudged matters | Unfavorable rulings and admonitions do not prove bias; transcript showed cautioning, not animus | Denied: no convincing evidence of personal bias; denial not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 714 P.2d 765 (Wyo. 1986) (dismissal for failure to appear at pretrial appropriate where no timely explanation)
- Ikerd v. Lacy, 852 F.2d 1256 (10th Cir. 1988) (affirms dismissal where counsel failed to attend scheduling conference and gave no timely explanation)
- Mora v. Husky Oil Co., 611 P.2d 842 (Wyo. 1980) (sanctions and dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- TZ Land & Cattle Co. v. Condict, 795 P.2d 1204 (Wyo. 1990) (party seeking disqualification must show convincing evidence of personal bias)
- Parris v. Parris, 204 P.3d 298 (Wyo. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 310 P.3d 888 (Wyo. 2013) (self-represented litigants must reasonably follow court orders)
- Russell v. Russell, 948 P.2d 1351 (Wyo. 1997) (sanctions for frivolous appeals typically not imposed when appellate challenge concerns discretionary rulings)