Summary 2007 WY 98

Summary of Decision issued June 19, 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: Kinstler v. RTB S. Greeley, Ltd. LLC.

Citation: 2007 WY 98

Docket Number: 06-218

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kort Kinstler, Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Dale W. Cottam and Lindsay Ann Woznick, Hirst & Applegate, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in its finding of fact that Kinstler had not complied with the Lease’s requirement to notify RTB of the alleged default or in its conclusion of law that Kinstler could not rely on the alleged default as a material breach that excused him from paying rent. Whether the district court’s decision should be summarily affirmed or Kinstler sanctioned, because of his failure to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. Whether the Lease entitles RTB to an award of attorney’s fees against Kinstler.

Facts/Discussion: Kinstler appeals from a judgment entered in favor of RTB arising from a failure to pay rent for premises leased from RTB. Kinstler contended that the failure to pay rent was excused by RTB’s material breach of the lease agreement.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.
Material Breach: The Lease unambiguously required notice of an alleged default. Kinstler did not identify any evidence in the record establishing the required notice was given. The Court therefore could not find the decision clearly erroneous. Indeed, whether or not the breach was material, the district court correctly concluded Kinstler could not rely on it because he failed to comply with the Lease’s notice requirement. Kinstler raised other issues that were not presented with cogent argument or pertinent authority, so the Court refused to consider those contentions.
Summary Affirmation or Additional Sanctions: The Court declined to summarily affirm the district court’s decision or to impose additional sanctions as requested by RTB. Reasonable compliance with applicable procedural rules and requirements is mandatory but the Court affords pro se litigants some leniency when the violations do not preclude meaningful review.
Attorney’s Fees: The Lease provided that the prevailing party was entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred because of an alleged breach. RTB is the prevailing party and is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on the appeal.

Holding: The Court did not find the district court’s decision to be clearly erroneous. Kinstler failed to comply with the Lease’s requirements to notify RTB of an alleged default and as a result could not rely on it as a material breach that excused him from paying rent. The Court declined to summarily affirm the district court decision because Kinstler’s violations of the rules did not preclude meaningful review. Under the terms of the lease, RTB is entitled to an award of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. The amount will be determined after submission of proper documentation by counsel.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ywpsso .