Summary 2006 WY 142

Summary of Decision issued November 6, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Osborn v. Kilts

Citation: 2006 WY 142

Docket Number: 06-9

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Richard B. Osborn, Pro Se.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Rick L. Koehmstedt of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether Osborn’s claims of road ownership are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Whether the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Whether sanctions should be imposed against Osborn.

Holding: Osborn appealed a decision of the district court ordering him to remove “all junk and debris” placed by him along an access easement he holds over land of Kilts. Osborn claimed that he owned the access road and can properly exclude Kilts, and also that he has the right to maintain the road as he sees fit. The Court noted that Osborn failed clearly to identify any issues in his brief. Generally, failure to comply with the Court’s appellate rules is ground for refusal to consider the offending party’s contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and affirmance. The Court attempted to address the issues raised in Osborn’s brief to avoid a similar appeal on these issues in the future.
In 2002, Osborn filed a complaint which he alleged that Kilts had impermissibly interfered with Osborn’s exclusive use of the access road and had damaged the road. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kilts to the extent that Osborn’s claims were based on the assertion that he owned the road and therefore had the right to exclude Kilts. The district court relied on the doctrine of res judicata in granting summary judgment because Osborn’s claim of ownership had been litigated, decided adversely to Osborn and affirmed on appeal. A bench trial was later held on Osborn’s claims that Kilts had interfered with the roadway. The district court granted Kilts’ motion for a directed verdict. After Osborn presented his case, the court determined that (1) there was no evidence that Osborn’s use had been impeded; (2) any claimed interference was temporary and de minimus; (3) there was no evidence that Kilts personally obstructed the easement; and (4) there was no proof offered regarding damages. After Kilts presented his case, the Court ruled that Osborn had impermissibly interfered with Kilts’ use of the roadway and had wrongfully destroyed a cattle guard.
Standard of Review: The application of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. The Court reviews a district court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.
Discussion: The majority of Osborn’s brief is devoted to arguments regarding the legal status of his access road. In 1989, a Natrona County court determined that the roadway was an easement, that Osborn was the owner of the dominant estate, that Manning (Kilts’ predecessor in interest) was the owner of the servient estate, that the roadway served as Osborn’s access to his property and served as Kilts’ access to his property. The Court stated that the elements required to determine applicability of res judicata were met because the issue, subject matter and capacity of the parties to argue the subject matter and issue were identical to the previous lawsuit and Osborn presented no cogent argument claiming otherwise. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted on Osborn’s ownership claim. Osborn raised a second issue which had previously been decided adversely to him. Osborn had destroyed a section of fence erected to prevent Kilts’ cattle from traveling past a cattle guard. The district court determined that the fence was not an obstruction to Osborn’s use to the easement and that it could be replaced as long as it did not impede the flow of water. In Osborn v. Manning, the Court affirmed an order in which this issue had been previously decided adversely to Osborn. Therefore the Court affirmed the determination of the district court on this issue in the instant case. Osborn next argued that it was his right to maintain the road as he sees fit. His argument on appeal ignored the basis for the district court’s decision and therefore must fail. Osborn insisted he may maintain the easement but failed to address the district court’s finding that his “maintenance” was unhealthy, unsightly, and ineffectual. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision. The final two issues the Court could discern were that the attorney for Kilts committed a fraud on the court and that the district court judge should have been disqualified from presiding over the case. The Court summarily affirmed those issues because they were not supported by cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority. Finally, the Court considered whether sanctions were appropriate. According to W.R.A.P. 10.05, the Court may award attorney’s fees and damages if “there was no reasonable cause for appeal.” Pro se litigants are not excused from following the Court’s rules of procedure. Sanctions were justified because the substantive arguments were difficult to identify and when identifiable, were frivolous; the arguments lacked cogence and often, coherence; citations to the record for factual assertions largely referenced his previous filings which were not factual evidence in the record; Osborn ignored the reasons for the district court’s decisions and often seemingly argued that the Court should reverse simply because he did not agree with the outcome; citations to legal authority were general and were not pertinent to facts and circumstances of the case. The Court decided that after Kilts’ counsel submits a statement of costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the instant appeal, the Court will enter an award ordering appropriate costs and fees.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/y6f5ot .