Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Summary 2007 WY 86

Summary of Decision issued May 23, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Arnold and Arnold, PC v. Day and Day

Citation: 2007 WY 86

Docket Number: 06-160

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): George L. Arnold, of George L. Arnold, PC, and V. Anthony Vehar of Vehar Law Offices, PC; Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Mark W. Harris of Harris Law Firm, PC, Evanston, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the appeal should be dismissed for the failure of Arnold to bring a complete record to the Court for review. Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law reveal any clear error of law.

Facts/Discussion: Arnold contended that the district court erred in granting a judgment in favor of the Days. The dispute arose because of the odor of permanent solution migrating from the Days’ hair salon into the common areas of the condominium spaces and the Arnold offices.
Standard of Review:
The Court’s review was greatly restricted because they had no transcript of the trial. The record included exhibits. Failure to include a transcript restricted the Court to those allegations of error that did not require an inspection of the transcript.
Arnold contended that the district court’s decision letter and its findings of fact and conclusions of law constituted special findings and therefore a transcript was not required. He failed to support this assertion with cogent argument or pertinent authority. The Court noted that no request was made by either party for special findings, special findings were not made and special findings were not a substitute for a transcript.
The Court reviewed the decision letter and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and accepted the trial court’s findings as being the only basis for deciding the issues which pertained to the evidence. In the absence of anything to refute them, the Court sustains the trial court’s findings of fact and assumes the evidence was sufficient to support those findings. The Court noted they may affirm the district court upon any valid basis appearing in the record.

Holding: The Court concluded the district court’s judgment should be affirmed because the evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that the Days did not breach the contract between the parties.


J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: .

No comments:

Check out our tags in a cloud (from Wordle)!