394 P.3d 480
Wyo.2017Background
- Wallace Burnett, a minority shareholder (11 of 604 shares) of Burnett Ranch, Inc., sued his siblings and son in 2015 seeking injunctive relief, an accounting, derivative and individual claims, determination of share ownership, damages, and winding up of the corporation.
- Appellees moved to dismiss Burnett's amended complaint; the district court granted the motion and dismissed his claims.
- Burnett appealed pro se but failed to file a designation of the record in the district court and did not secure or provide a transcript of the dismissal hearing.
- His appellate brief contained no record citations, advanced facts beyond the complaint, and offered legal citations without explaining their application; many arguments were not tied to the district court ruling on appeal.
- The Supreme Court concluded Burnett did not present cogent argument or comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and summarily affirmed the dismissal.
- The Court certified there was no reasonable cause for the appeal and directed appellees to submit attorney fees and costs for assessment under W.R.A.P. 10.05(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of appellate record for review | Burnett implied the record/transcript would support reversal (no proper designation filed) | Appellees argued record and transcript were not provided, so review is impossible | Court held Burnett failed to designate the record or provide transcript; absent record, assume district court correct and affirm |
| Compliance with appellate briefing rules (citations to record/authority) | Burnett advanced factual and legal assertions in his brief | Appellees argued brief lacked record citations and cogent application of authority | Court held brief failed W.R.A.P. requirements and did not present cogent arguments; declined to consider unsupported claims |
| Pro se leniency vs. procedural requirements | Burnett sought leniency as a pro se litigant | Appellees urged enforcement of rules and possible sanctions | Court acknowledged limited leniency but required reasonable adherence; summary affirmance appropriate due to noncompliance |
| Award of fees and costs for frivolous/unreasonable appeal | Burnett did not address fee request on merits | Appellees requested fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05(b) as there was no reasonable cause for appeal | Court certified no reasonable cause and directed appellees to submit attorney fees and costs for assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259 (Wyo. 2000) (pro se litigants get some leniency but must reasonably follow procedural rules)
- Young v. State, 46 P.3d 295 (Wyo. 2002) (sanctions including summary affirmance for pro se noncompliance)
- Knezovich v. Knezovich, 340 P.3d 1034 (Wyo. 2015) (appellant bears burden to provide sufficient record; absent record, court assumes correctness of lower court)
- Basolo v. Gose, 994 P.2d 968 (Wyo. 2000) (appeals lacking cogent argument and pertinent authority may be denied consideration)
- Marshall v. State, 385 P.3d 304 (Wyo. 2016) (court may decline to consider claims unsupported by cogent argument)
- Serna v. State, 305 P.3d 1142 (Wyo. 2013) (reiteration that unsupported claims need not be considered)
- Grynberg v. L & R Exploration Venture, 261 P.3d 731 (Wyo. 2011) (court generally reluctant to impose sanctions but will when appeal lacks merit)
- Amen, Inc. v. Barnard, 938 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1997) (discusses standards and caution in awarding appellate sanctions)