Case Title: Hance v. Straatsma

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1986-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hance v. Straatsma1986 WY 144721 P.2d 575Case Number: 85-188Decided: 07/02/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming

Lowell E. HANCE, d/b/a Hance's 
Foreign Car Repair, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

Lawanna STRAATSMA, 
Appellee (Plaintiff).

Appeal from District 
Court, UintaCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

Lowell E. Hance, 
pro se.

No appearance for 
appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and BROWN, CARDINE, URBIGKIT 
and MACY, JJ.

THOMAS, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1.]     The only issue 
presented in this case appears to be the question of the sufficiency of the 
evidence to sustain a judgment entered against Lowell E. Hance in the county 
court of UintaCounty for failure to 
accomplish carburetor repairs. The county court entered a judgment for $100.00 
against Hance, and that judgment was affirmed in the district court. Hance has 
appealed to this court from the order of the district court affirming the 
judgment of the county court and has elected to represent 
himself.

[¶2.]     Hance's brief in this 
court is two pages long on legal size paper.1 No authorities are cited to sustain 
his position, but he states the issue to be resolved in this 
way:

"Did the County Court 
abuse its discretion in finding the Appellant guilty based upon the evidence 
introduced at trial and should the Supreme Court disturb the Judgment of the 
District Court's ruling on appeal which thereby affirmed the Judgment of the 
County Court."

[¶3.]     The record which is 
available to us discloses that Lawanna Straatsma took her automobile to Hance's 
Foreign Car Repair for installation of a rebuilt carburetor and for a tune-up. 
When she came for her car on February 23, 1985, it would not start. Hance then 
offered to accomplish additional work on the car and have it ready on February 
25, 1985. Straatsma was upset and refused this offer stating that she would find 
someone else to get the car running. Despite her dissatisfaction, however, she 
paid Hance's bill of $254.50 on February 24, 1985.

[¶4.]     In the meantime she had 
a friend of hers work on the car. She admitted at trial that her friend had 
tampered with the float level adjustment in the carburetor. The car still did 
not function properly, and Straatsma brought it back to Hance on February 25, 
1985, for additional work. The automobile still failed to function properly, and 
Straatsma then took it to a dealer in Salt Lake City where she incurred an additional 
repair bill of $244.09.

[¶5.]     Straatsma then brought 
an action against Hance in the CountyCourtofUintaCounty. In her complaint she alleged as 
damages the $254.50 she had paid to Hance, the $244.09 paid to the Salt Lake City dealer, and $3.75 for the fuel required to 
make the trip to Salt Lake 
City. She also prayed for $10.00 in court costs. Hance's 
defense was that the Hance's Foreign Car Repair carburetor warranty was valid 
only if the float level adjustment had not been tampered with. In resolving the 
case in Straatsma's favor the county court, in an opinion letter, pointed out 
that Hance had worked on the car after Straatsma's friend had tampered with the 
float level in the carburetor, but also noted that Straatsma had not fully 
extended to Hance the opportunity to make his work right. The county court then 
determined that Hance should pay Straatsma one-half the charge for the work he 
performed which related directly to the carburetor, that is $85.00, plus court 
costs of $10.00 and a sheriff's service fee of $5.00.

[¶6.]     In his brief on appeal 
to the district court Hance argued that the issues were whether Straatsma had 
knowingly violated the warranty terms and whether, in light of the failure of 
Straatsma to bring her friend to testify with respect to his work on the car, 
there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment in Straatsma's favor. The 
sufficiency of the evidence issue was not, however, further briefed in the 
appeal to the district court. The district court affirmed the judgment of the 
county court, stating that the county court was correct in not treating the case 
as one for breach of warranty, but indicating that it was an equitable action 
for recision of contract based on failure of consideration. In his "brief" filed 
in this court reference is made by Hance to Straatsma's full awareness of the 
warranty requirements and to the evidence demonstrating the altered float level 
adjustment. The "argument" in the brief in toto says:

"Plaintiff testified that 
her friend had altered at least one float level adjustment which she admittedly 
understood beforehand breached carburetor warranty requirements. The friend was 
not present at trial to substantiate whatever else he may have done to the 
carburetor or vehicle in general."

[¶7.]     We are unable to 
discern whether Hance challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 
judgment or the county court's failure to find that he was not liable under the 
warranty, or both. We have said that it is not the function of this court to 
frame appellant's argument or draw his issues for him. Freeman v. Lusk, Wyo., 
717 P.2d 331, 332 (1986); Allen v. Safeway Stores, Inc., Wyo., 699 P.2d 277, 280 
(1985); 37 Gambling Devices v. State, Wyo., 694 P.2d 711, 713 (1985); Young v. 
Hawks, Wyo., 624 P.2d 235, 238 (1981); Cline v. Safeco Insurance Companies, 
Wyo., 614 P.2d 1335, 1337 (1980); and Alcala v. State, Wyo., 487 P.2d 448, 456 
(1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 997, 92 S. Ct. 1259, 31 L. Ed. 2d 466, reh. denied 
406 U.S. 911, 92 S. Ct. 1613, 31 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1972). It is not enough in 
presenting an appeal in this court to identify a potential issue, but, at a 
minimum, the appellant should make some attempt to relate the law to the facts. 
Elder v. Jones, Wyo., 608 P.2d 654, 660 
(1980).

[¶8.]     This court consistently 
has refused to consider positions which are not supported by cogent argument or 
pertinent authority. Freeman v. Lusk, supra, at 332; Capshaw v. State, Wyo., 714 P.2d 349, 352 (1986); Goggins v. Harwood, Wyo., 704 P.2d 1282, 1294 (1985); Gulf 
Oil Corp. v. Wyo. Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Wyo., 693 P.2d 227, 239 
(1985); Zanetti v. Zanetti, Wyo., 689 P.2d 1116, 1120 (1984); Osborn v. Manning, 
Wyo., 685 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1984); Cubin v. Cubin, Wyo., 685 P.2d 680, 682 
(1984); Kincheloe v. Milatzo, Wyo., 678 P.2d 855, 858 (1984); and Herman v. 
Speed King Mfg. Co., Wyo., 675 P.2d 1271, 1278 (1984). We are not required to 
consider on appeal grounds which were neither presented to or nor passed upon by 
the intermediate court. Hogan v. Postin, Wyo., 695 P.2d 1042 (1985), citing 5B C.J.S. 
Appeal & Error § 1815, p. 151 (1958). Hudson Coal Company v. Hauf, 18 Wyo. 
425, 109 P. 21 (1910), as construed in a dissenting opinion by Justice Raper in 
Dixon v. City of Worland, Wyo., 595 P.2d 84, 88 (1979), may even inhibit the 
consideration of questions which were not presented to the district court 
serving as an intermediate appellate court.

[¶9.]     Our rule is that where 
the sufficiency of evidence is an issue we uphold the judgment if there is 
evidence to support it, and in so doing we look only to the evidence submitted 
by the prevailing party and give to it every favorable inference which may be 
drawn therefrom, without considering any contrary evidence. Ely v. Kirk, 
Wyo., 707 P.2d 706, 709 (1985); Goggins v. 
Harwood, supra; Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, Wyo., 704 P.2d 702, 705 (1985); Matter of Jones, 
Wyo., 702 P.2d 1299 (1985); Matter of Abas, 
Wyo., 701 P.2d 1153 (1985); and Tremblay v. 
Reid, Wyo., 700 P.2d 391 (1985). The record in this 
case discloses that Straatsma's evidence was to the effect that even though her 
friend had worked on the carburetor Hance still agreed to do, and Hance did, 
corrective work thereafter. In proceeding to work on Straatsma's vehicle at that 
point in time, Hance waived any complaint that he may have had with respect to 
Straatsma's breach of the warranty agreement. The only problem was that 
Straatsma refused to afford Hance still a second opportunity to correct the poor 
work. Even so, in balancing the equities, the county court awarded a judgment 
against Hance for only one-half the cost of the carburetor repair work. We do 
not find any error with respect to the failure of Straatsma to produce her 
friend to testify. Hance could have subpoenaed that friend to testify at the 
trial. Furthermore, Straatsma admitted that the warranty agreement was 
breached.

[¶10.]  The record persuades us that this 
judgment is supported by sufficient evidence and should be upheld. The order of 
the district court affirming the judgment of the county court is 
affirmed.

[¶11.]  Had Straatsma appeared to defend this 
appeal, we might well have refused to certify that there was reasonable cause 
for it. The refusal to so certify would have entitled Straatsma not only to the 
cost of preparing a brief, but also a reasonable attorney fee of $100 to $500 
together with a penalty of up to $1,000 pursuant to Rule 10.05, W.R.A.P. Matter 
of Adoption of GSD, Wyo., 716 P.2d 984 (1986); Andrau v. Michigan Wisconsin Pipe 
Line Company, Wyo., 712 P.2d 372 (1986); Osborn v. Warner, Wyo., 694 P.2d 730 
(1985); James S. Jackson Company, Inc. v. Meyer, Wyo., 677 P.2d 835 (1984); 
Bacon v. Carey Company, Wyo., 669 P.2d 533 (1983); Reno Livestock Corporation v. 
Sun Oil Company, Wyo., 638 P.2d 147 (1981); Perry v. Vaught, Wyo., 624 P.2d 776 
(1981); and Keller v. Anderson, Wyo., 554 P.2d 1253 (1976). Straatsma chose not 
to defend the appeal. She has not been prejudiced or damaged by the frivolous 
pursuit by Hance of his case in this court. The specious nature of Hance's 
appeal would justify dismissal, but instead we affirm the 
judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rule 5.05, W.R.A.P., 
requires that briefs be submitted to this court on paper 8 1/2 inches by 11 
inches in size, not on legal size paper. We frequently have objected to the 
failure of litigants such as Mr. Hance who chose to represent themselves to 
comply with the rules of this court. Urich v. Fox, Wyo., 687 P.2d 893 (1984); Osborn v. Manning, Wyo., 685 P.2d 1121 (1984); Annis v. Beebe & Runyan 
Furniture Company, Wyo., 685 P.2d 678 (1984); 
and Matter of GP, Wyo., 679 P.2d 976 (1984). While we have on 
these occasions complained of failure to follow our rules we have not imposed 
sanctions. We now serve notice that we will strike briefs of litigants which are 
not submitted on paper of the proper size and we may in our discretion refuse to 
grant leave to refile such briefs.