Case Title: Salt River Enterprises, Inc. v. Heiner

Citation: 

Docket Number: 5824

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1983-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Salt River Enterprises, Inc. v. Heiner1983 WY 56663 P.2d 518Case Number: 5824Case Number: 5824Decided: 05/23/1983Supreme Court of Wyoming
SALT RIVER ENTERPRISES, 
INC., APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),

v.

CHARLES G. HEINER, 
APPELLEE (DEFENDANT). No. 5824

Appeal from the District 
Court, LincolnCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

Larry L. 
Jorgenson, Jackson, signed the brief and appeared in oral 
argument on behalf of 
appellant.

Wallace L. 
Stock, of Loomis, Lazear, Wilson & Pickett, Cheyenne, signed the brief and appeared in oral 
argument on behalf of 
appellee.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROSE and 
BROWN, JJ.

ROONEY, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellant-plaintiff 
instituted this action against appellee-defendant alleging that appellee had 
constructed an easement road across appellant's property at a different location 
than that described in a written road easement given to appellee by appellant's 
predecessor in interest. After a trial to the court, the written easement was 
held to be ambiguous and the intention of the parties was found to require 
construction of the road at the location where appellee did construct 
it.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     Before addressing the 
issues presented on appeal, we must determine the extent of the record properly 
available for our review. Part of that filed with this court consists of a 
purported transcript of proceedings had at the trial of the matter. It appears 
to be an original, but it does not contain a court reporter's certificate that 
it is "true and correct in every particular" as required by Rule 4.02, W.R.A.P. 
1 Nor is the transcript certified by 
the clerk as part of the record on appeal as required by such 
rule.

[¶4.]     In one of the earliest 
cases reported after Wyoming became a state, the necessity of a 
properly authenticated transcript was discussed. This court there concluded that 
the certificate of the clerk was not sufficient to guarantee the reliability of 
the transcript and that, absent the court's certificate that the transcript 
correctly and fully states the evidence received, it could not be considered. Roy v. Union Mercantile Co., 3 
Wyo. 417, 
422-423, 26 P. 996, 998 (1891). The necessity for proper authentication of a 
transcript was reiterated in In Re Basin 
State Bank, 43 Wyo. 1, 296 P. 1074 (1930), in a number of cases cited 
therein, and in Northwestern Terra Cotta 
Co. v. Smith-Turner Hotel Co., 47 
Wyo. 190, 33 P.2d 915 (1934).

[¶5.]     The requirement for a 
proper certification is now embodied in a rule of court rather than a statute, 
as was the situation in the early cases, but the requirement is nonetheless 
binding. The facts necessary to present a question for review must be properly 
before us. As was said in In Re Basin 
State Bank, supra, 43 Wyo. at 12, 296 P. at 
1076:

"It is self-evident 
reviewing courts `must be furnished with legal evidence of the fact that what 
are brought to them as records on appeal are in truth the transcripts or other 
proper reproductions of all that took place at the trials.' Bognuda v. Pearson, 
71 Cal. App. 105, 234 P. 857, 859."

[¶6.]     Since we do not have a 
properly authenticated transcript before us, we must accept the trial court's 
findings of fact as that upon which any decision on issues pertaining to the 
evidence must be based.

[¶7.]     On appeal from the 
judgment, the appellant words the issues as follows:

"A. Whether the Common 
Easement Agreement is ambiguous as a matter of law?

"1. Whether the District 
Court erred in holding that the worded description in the recorded easement is 
uncertain and ambiguous?

"2. Whether the District 
Court erred in finding there was an existing road or roadway at the location 
Defendant constructed his road?

"B. Whether the District 
Court erred in admitting into evidence Defendant's Exhibits A & 
B?

"C. Whether the District 
Court erred in holding that Plaintiff knew or should have known or discovered 
where the parties to the Common Easement Agreement intended the road to be 
constructed?"

[¶8.]     Issues A.2, B and C are 
issues pertaining to the evidence. Appellant makes extensive reference to the 
transcript to support his contentions relative to the issues. Inasmuch as we 
cannot follow the leads in his argument on these issues into the transcript, we 
must address them only from that contained in the findings of fact. Issues A and 
A.1 are issues which are founded on a construction or interpretation of the 
easement agreement. Whether or not it is ambiguous and uncertain can be 
ascertained from it and external evidence need be considered only if it is 
ambiguous. The easement agreement is in the record as an exhibit to the 
complaint.

ISSUES A AND 
A.1

AMBIGUITY

[¶9.]     In reviewing the 
district court construction of the easement agreement, we are governed by the 
principles applied to the construction of contracts in general. Rouse v. Munroe, Wyo., 658 P.2d 74 (1983); Hollabaugh v. Kolbet, Wyo., 
604 P.2d 1359 (1980).

"Our basic purpose in 
construing or interpreting a contract is to determine the intention and 
understanding of the parties. [Citations.] If the contract is in writing and the 
language is clear and unambiguous, the intention is to be secured from the words 
of the contract. [Citations.] And the contract as a whole should be considered, 
with each part being read in light of all other parts. [Citations.] The 
interpretation and construction is done by the court as a matter of law. 
[Citations.]

"If the contract 
is ambiguous, resort may be had to extrinsic evidence. [Citations.] An ambiguous 
contract `is an agreement which is obscure in its meaning, because of 
indefiniteness of expression, or because a double meaning is present.' 
[Citation.] Ambiguity justifying extraneous evidence is not generated by the 
subsequent disagreement of the parties concerning its meaning. [Citation.]" Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer 
Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 
(1980).

[¶10.]  The description of the road on the 
easement agreement set forth its centerline by purported courses and directions 
and concluding with "as shown on the Exhibit `A' attached hereto and by this 
reference made a part hereof." The courses and directions are not precise, given 
direction by such words as "an East - Southeasterly direction," "southerly" 
direction, etc. Compass degrees were not used. The courses or distances were 
given in approximations, i.e., "approximately one-half (1/2) mile," 
"approximately 20 rods," etc. That referred to as "Exhibit A" was not attached 
as recited. In its findings, the trial court found that "the map, Exhibit A, was 
inadvertently omitted." Because of the description deficiency and the failure to 
attach the exhibit to the recorded instrument, the district court properly found 
an ambiguity and relied on extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the 
parties at the time the agreement was made.

[¶11.]  At this point our review is hampered by 
appellant's failure to include an authenticated transcript in the record on 
appeal.2 However, the district court's 
findings of fact set forth sufficient evidence to support the determination that 
appellee constructed the easement road at the location intended by the parties 
to the easement agreement.

[¶12.]  The findings reflect that prior to the 
execution of the Common Easement Agreement, access to appellant's property was 
by a road

"* * * which lay to the 
west below the hill. However, over the years the hill route fell into disuse in 
favor of a short `crop road' which was situated in the cultivated field to the 
west. During certain periods during the year, particularly in wet weather or 
during spring run-off, the crop road becomes impassible."

[¶13.]  It was found that over the years 
discussion was had with reference to improving or putting the road along the 
hill to the east and discontinuing the crop road. Additionally, appellant's 
predecessor in interest refused to sign the easement agreement until it was 
changed to reduce the width of the road and until it contained a provision for 
help to move the pipeline under the proposed road. The pipeline was under the 
hill side road.

[¶14.]  It was further found that the location of 
the pipeline to which reference was made in the easement agreement was pointed 
out to appellant's president at the time appellant purchased the land over which 
the easement ran.

[¶15.]  There was sufficient evidence for the 
trial court to hold that the location described in the easement agreement was 
the hill side location and that appellee constructed the road at that 
location.

ISSUE 
A.2

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF 
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ROAD

[¶16.]  Again, our review is hampered by lack of 
a trial transcript, but the trial court found that the hill road existed even 
prior to the execution of the easement agreement. We have nothing before us to 
refute the finding, and the reference to the pipeline, which was handwritten 
into the original easement agreement and which was under the hill location only, 
supports the understanding of the parties to the easement agreement that the 
hill road existed at the time the easement agreement was 
executed.

ISSUES B AND 
C

ERROR IN ADMISSION OF 
EXHIBITS A AND B, AND ERROR IN ATTRIBUTING TO APPELLANT KNOWLEDGE OF OR ABILITY 
TO KNOW OF THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE EASEMENT 
LOCATION

[¶17.]  These two issues can normally be 
addressed only by reference to the transcript. We do not even know what Exhibits 
A and B are.

[¶18.]  We will not substitute our judgment for 
that of the trial court and we will sustain the findings of the trial court 
unless clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Plains 
Tire and Battery Company v. Plains A to Z Tire Co., Inc., Wyo., 622 P.2d 917, 
920 (1981); Meeker v. Lanham, Wyo., 604 P.2d 556, 558 (1979). There is nothing 
before us to indicate the clearly erroneous nature of the trial court's 
findings. Such findings of fact reflect that appellant purchased the property 
subject to the easement agreement. They also reflect that there was a conflict 
of evidence concerning whether the intended location of the easement agreement 
as construed by the district court was made known to appellant prior to the sale 
or whether it was correctly perceived by appellant. The trial court determined 
that appellant should have recognized the incomplete description in the easement 
agreement and that the exhibit map was missing. The trial was to the court, and 
it received the questioned exhibits into evidence. We cannot say that the 
findings of the district court are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the 
evidence.

[¶19.]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rule 4.02, W.R.A.P., 
provides:

"The appellant shall, 
within ten (10) days after filing the notice of appeal, file and serve on the 
appellee a description of the parts of the transcript which he intends to 
include in the record. If an appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding 
or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or contrary to the evidence, he 
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such 
finding or conclusion. If the appellee deems a transcript of other parts of the 
proceedings to be necessary he shall, within ten (10) days after the service of 
the docketing statement of the issues by the appellant, order such parts from 
the reporter or procure an order from the district court requiring the appellant 
to do so. At the time of ordering, a party must make satisfactory arrangements 
with the reporter for payment of the cost of the 
transcript.

"All transcripts of testimony, evidence and 
proceedings shall be certified by the official court reporter to be true and 
correct in every particular, and when so certified shall be received as prima 
facie evidence if [of] the facts, testimony, evidence, and proceedings set forth 
in such transcript. The transcript format shall be 8 1/2 X 11 inches and a 
maximum of twenty-five (25) lines per page. The reporter shall indicate at the 
bottom of each page the name of the witness, the name of counsel then examining, 
and the type of examination there appearing. Appended to the transcript shall be 
an index of witness's testimony, and the points at which exhibits were offered 
and admitted or refused. The transcript 
shall be certified by the clerk as a part of the record on appeal. The 
record papers transmitted to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the district 
court shall be fastened in one (1) or more volumes, with pages numbered 
consecutively (the transcript need not be renumbered), and with a cover page 
bearing the title of the case and containing the designation `Record on Appeal,' 
followed by a complete index of all papers therein, and the clerk shall append 
his certificate identifying the papers with reasonable definiteness. In 
addition, counsel shall certify that all record papers and relevant transcript 
which he has designated are included as part of the record on appeal." (Emphasis 
added.)

2 Rule 4.02, supra, n. 1, 
gives appellant an opportunity to verify that the record is complete by 
requiring that counsel certify that all papers and relevant transcript have been 
included in the record on appeal. This was not done in this case.