Summary 2005 WY 150

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Veile v. Bryant

Citation: 2005 WY 150

Docket Number: 05-48

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): David Veile, Pro Se

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Michael Bryant, Pro Se, and Francisco L. Romero, Ft. Collins, Colorado

Date of Decision: November 28, 2005

Issues: Whether the district court's order denying payment of costs to Appellant should be reversed because it violates the Wyoming Supreme Court's Mandate Reversing Judgment and/or Rule 10.04 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Holdings: In the case at hand, the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered in its mandate that costs were to be awarded to the prevailing party. A party should not be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of taxing costs unless the party improves his or her position by the litigation. The decision of Appellant v. Appellee, 2004 WY 107 (2004) cannot reasonably be read to have improved Appellant's position in any way. Although in that decision the Supreme Court disagreed with the District Court on the issue of jurisdiction, it ruled against Appellant on all of his substantive claims and upheld the State Board of Embalming's decision in its entirety. The effect of the district court's decision, had it stood, would have been to leave in place the Board's decision denying Appellant all relief he requested. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision was the same. The Board's finding that Appellant had not proven his case against Appellee was affirmed and the Board's decision denying Appellant all requested relief was upheld. Appellant clearly did not improve his position in his litigation against Appellee through his appeal to this Court.

As a final issue, Appellee claims that there is no reasonable cause for this appeal and that sanctions should be awarded W.R.A.P. 10.05. In this case the lack of any cogent argument to support the appeal provides the circumstance making sanctions appropriate. The Court in its earlier decision ruled against Appellant on all of his claims of Board error. Appellant's interests in his litigation against Appellee were in no way vindicated through his appeal and no reasonable argument could be proffered to support his request for payment of costs. No good faith legal basis for this action can be discerned. Pro se litigants are not excused from the requirement that an appeal be supported by cogent argument.

Appellant was not a prevailing party entitled to an award of costs. Thus, the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for payment of costs is affirmed. Appellee shall submit a statement of costs and attorney's fees associated with responding to this appeal. Upon review, an appropriate amount in the form of sanctions will be awarded.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.