Summary 2008 WY 44
Summary of Decision issued April 11, 2008
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Case Name: Retz v. Siebrant
Citation: 2008 WY 44
Docket Number: S-07-0023
Appeal from the
Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): C.M. Aron, Aron and Henning, LLP; and Mattaniah Eytan, Law Office of Mattaniah Eytan.
Representing Appellees (Defendants): Jason M. Tangeman, Jeff Anthony and Philip A. Nicholas of Anthony, Nicholas and Tangeman for Appellees Siebrant and Zarate. Paul J. Hickey, Roger C. Fransen and Brandi L. Monger of Hickey & Evans, LLP for Appellee Graves; Gregory C. Dyekman and Timothy Woznick of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, PC, for Appellee UW Foundation.
Facts/Discussion: Appellants, Ron Retz, Anne Burwell Williams, Fred Crouter and Beverly Crouter request relief from the district court’s grant of two separate motions for summary judgment the last of which effectively disposed of Appellants’ claims against Appellees William Siebrandt, Salvador Zarate, Charles E. Graves and the
Colonel Rogers died in
Motion to Amend: The Court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellants leave to amend the Complaint. The district court found that Appellants Anne and Ernest Williams’ claim to remove Charles Graves as Trustee was a reiteration of an earlier request for injunctive relief. The district court refused to add claims for elder abuse and undue influence noting Appellants made no cogent argument as to why a
Summary Judgment: The district court granted summary judgment on all issues in two separate decision letters. Appellants contested the decision on two of the issues.
Contract to Make a Will: The Williams claimed that the Colonel entered into an agreement with their parents to leave all his money to his family when he died in exchange for their assistance in hiding his assets at the time of his divorce. There was no competent evidence to support the allegation. The Court stated it was against public policy to contract to hide assets in order to prevent a court from considering all assets when dividing a marital estate.
Undue Influence: The Court may affirm a summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record. The determinative issue was that Appellants had not raised an issue of material fact as to the validity of any part of the 2002 trust. The Court found that the district court was correct in finding that Appellees met their burden under the summary judgment standard. Appellants failed to make any showing that the Colonel was in a condition that permitted subversion of his will. They failed to show there was activity on the part of Siebrandt or Zarate with respect to the trust instrument. There was no evidence that either of them unduly profited as beneficiary under the trust.
Forgery: Appellants also attacked the 2002 trust on the basis that the Colonel’s signature was a forgery. The signature was notarized. The notary testified explaining her procedure for a jurat and her memory of the event. Appellants offered the report of a forensic document examiner. As the only evidence offered, it was not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the authenticity of a notarized signature.
Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellants’ request to amend their complaint. The district court properly summarily disposed of Appellants’ claims when they failed to produce enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any claim.
Affirmed.
C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/55fopm .
[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.]
2 comments:
Four out of five of the judges attended the University of Wyoming where they got their law degrees... and the UoW was a defendant. This tipped the balance of a fair trial out of the window. The judges proudly revealed that they had not read the Plaintiff's evidence but made damning judgments instead. Einstein said it best: "condemnation without thorough investigation is the height of ignorance". If you have a client that has killed a senior citizen, then this is the court you want to use to let them off scott free.
In an interesting twist, the Court of Appeal also ordered the two primary appellate attorneys to pay $3,000 each to the clerk of the appellate court as reimbursement for the costs of having the Court work up the case for decision. For appellate practitioners and the general public, there is a salient discussion of the average cost for processing an average appeal—ranging from a low of $5,900 to a high of $8,500. The First District chose $6,000 as the appropriate figure, dividing it up for payment between the two losing appellate attorneys. The appellate court ended by reminding attorneys that they have ethical obligations to not pursue frivolous appeals, but should opt instead to withdraw from representation rather than simply acting as “hired gun[s] required to carry out every direction given by the client,” citing Cosenza v. Kramer, 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1103 (1984).
WOW. Mattaniah Eytan dismissing an appeal. Its unheard of. Its almost an act of god. Either that or his "client" is getting cold feet in light of the fact that his "client" and him sued a San Francisco attorney with a stellar reputation for hard nosed aggressive litigation. It appears from the Court of Appeal's web site and the San Francisco Superior Court web site in case number 454503 that the prevailing parties are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. In essence, a dismissal is a defeat which means that Mattaniah Eytan has four back to back to back to back defeats. That is the most intense ass kicking I have ever seen. WHEW!
In Re Gong & Kwong (Cal. Ct. App. - Dec. 6, 2007)
I don't care how bad your day at the office was today. Trust me: Mattaniah Eytan (a U. Chicago Law graduate practicing in Corte Madera) and Eric Schenk (a Boalt graduate who practices with Eytan) had it worse today. Much, much worse.
You don't see many opinions in which the Court of Appeal sanctions the lawyers for filing a frivolous appeal. Much less opinions in which the Court not only does so, but also goes out of its way to repeatedly identify the lawyers by name. As well as relentlessly slam them.
But that's precisely what Justice Stein does here.
It hurts. So, so badly. Especially since, yes, the arguments that these lawyers made in the appeal were both hypertechnical and clearly wrong. But I can see how someone might potentially "convince" themselves that these arguments were at least short of frivolous. It's not a case where the attorneys were just clearly, clearly, and totally clearly out of control. Rather, they made arguments that you might -- in some hypothetical world -- come to convince yourself were true. At least if you were getting paid to make them.
Not that Justice Stein is wrong to sanction the lawyers. Since I'm quite positive that the client -- who was sanctioned alongside the attorneys -- did in fact file the appeal purely to continue to harass and frustrate his former spouse. And the attorneys should have known better. Much better.
So be forewarned. And realize that you day as a lawyer today could have been much worse. Especially if you were in the shoes of the lawyers here. Who not only get spanked -- hard -- monetarily, but who also now have to see their names forever emblazoned in the pages of the California Appellate Reporter. In a way that you'd rather forget.
Plus, trust me, the press will get a hold of this one as well. Not to mention the State Bar. (For a subtle feel of how Justice Stein treats the lawyers, here's the penultimate sentence of the opinion: "Attorneys Mattaniah Eytan and Eric Schenk and the clerk of this court are each ordered to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar upon return of the remittitur." (emphasis in original))
Post a Comment