Summary 2005 WY 159

Summary of Decision issued December 15, 2005

[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: Cotton v. McCulloh

Citation: 2005 WY 159

Docket Number: 05-60

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): C. John Cotton of Cotton Law Office, Gillette, Wyoming; and Stephen H. Kline of Kline Law Office, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Kline.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): R. Michael Vang of Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2005

Issues: Whether the fee dispute committee and the district court failed to make necessary findings regarding mediation and GAL expenses, and regarding effect of Appellee’s agreement to pay fees. Whether credit should be afforded for $6,148.59 in mediation and initial GAL expenses paid at the request and the benefit of Appellee. Whether the court awarded fees in February 1999, or did the parties treat the funds awarded by the court as fees modifying the initial cap, including the fees now at issue. Whether Appellee’s claims are barred by principles of contract, laches and estoppel. Whether the fee dispute committee abused its discretion by the manner in which it entered a judgment in the fee dispute arbitration hearing.

Holdings: The Court considered the proper standard of review to apply to decisions from the fee dispute committee. They looked to the language of the Wyoming Rules for Resolution of Fee Disputes. The Court treated the fee dispute committee as an administrative agency for the purposes of appeal which recognized the importance of the committee’s function in resolving factual issues involved in fee disputes. They scrutinized the committee’s decision in the present case in accordance with the procedures for judicial review of administrative decisions as set forth in W.R.A.P. 12.01 et. seq. and § 16-3-114(c). They reviewed the committee’s conclusions of law de novo.
According to Fee Dispute Rule 11(c), the attorney is responsible for carrying the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The fee dispute committee used Appellant’s billing statements to fashion its decision. The Court reviewed the record and stated they could not fault the committee for using Appellant’s billing statements as the basis for determining the amounts due to him.
The Court reviewed the record and determined that substantial evidence supported the committee’s determination that the district court did not order Mr. Drake to pay a specific attorney’s fees award to Appellee. The district court’s order very clearly stated the interim distribution was not an award of attorney’s fees and that Appellee was free to use funds in any manner she wished. In addition, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the fee dispute committee’s decision that the fee cap was applicable to the divorce and initial appeal and that the parties’ conduct did not modify the terms of the representation agreement.
Each ultimate fact or conclusion must be thoroughly explained in order for a court to determine upon what basis the ultimate fact or conclusion was reached. The Court reviewed the record and found the committee had carefully reviewed the evidence and detailed its reasoning in extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which were incorporated into the resolution order. The Court found no error in the procedure the committee used to articulate its decision.

The decision of the district court was affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.