Case Title: Larsen v. Roberts

Citation: 

Docket Number: 83-98

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1984-02-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Larsen v. Roberts1984 WY 20676 P.2d 1046Case Number: 83-98Decided: 02/08/1984GLEN LLOYD LARSEN AND MARGARET LEANN LARSEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS),

v.

H.C. ROBERTS, JR., AND LAVONNE ROBERTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).

Supreme Court of Wyoming
GLEN LLOYD LARSEN AND 
MARGARET LEANN LARSEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 
APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS),

v.

H.C. ROBERTS, JR., AND 
LAVONNE ROBERTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, FremontCounty, Elizabeth Kail, 
J.

Michael D. 
Zwickl, Casper, 
for 
appellants.

Robert O. 
Anderson of Andrews & Anderson, P.C., Riverton, for appellees.

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

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal is from the 
granting of a summary judgment in a civil action brought to foreclose a mortgage 
upon real property.

[¶2.]     Appellants raise a 
single issue on appeal:

"Whether the District 
Court may accept affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment that 
were not filed contemporaneously with the motion as required by Wyoming Rules of 
Civil Procedure, Rule 6(d)[1] and without motion for leave of 
court for late filing."

[¶3.]     We will affirm in part 
and reverse in part.

[¶4.]     Mr. and Mrs. Larsen 
executed and delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts a promissory note and mortgage in 
August 1980. The Larsens failed to make the 1982 payment and were in default. 
After demand for payment and no response, this action was 
instituted.

[¶5.]     Appellees (plaintiffs) 
filed a motion for summary judgment without attaching affidavits in support of 
the motion. On the date of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, 
appellants filed their reply to requests for admissions. Appellees, at the time 
of the hearing, filed and offered affidavits in support of their motion for 
summary judgment. Appellants objected to the affidavits upon the ground that 
they were not timely filed. Appellants' objections were overruled, the 
affidavits were allowed, filed, and considered by the court in granting summary 
judgment to appellees in the following sums:



$40,000.00

Principal

3,000.00

Interest 
      to August 22, 1982

1,123.40

Interest 
      to March 16, 1983

4,000.00

Penalty

1,752.60

Attorneys 
      fees and costs to March 15, 
1983

for a total 
judgment of $49,876.00.

The summary 
judgment also provided that additional attorneys fees and costs to be incurred 
in the future in the foreclosure and sale of the property would be allowed upon 
application to the court; and that if the amount claimed were disputed, said 
claim and dispute would be presented to the court for final 
determination.

[¶6.]     The purpose of summary 
judgment is to dispose of suits before trial that present no genuine issue of 
material fact in a situation in which a party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law. Material facts may come before the court at any time in the form 
of pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and admissions, Rule 
56(c), W.R.C.P.2, and be considered at the hearing 
upon motion for summary judgment. Material facts may also be presented in 
affidavit form. However, when affidavits are used, they must be served with the 
motion for summary judgment as required by Rule 6(d), W.R.C.P., supra fn. 1; or, 
if not served with the motion,

(a) the statutory period 
for filing may be enlarged if the request is made before the expiration of the 
period originally prescribed; and

(b) filing may be 
permitted, upon motion, after the expiration of the specified period, where the 
failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Rule 6(b), W.R.C.P.3

[¶7.]     The record before us is 
brief. Examination of that record discloses that,

(a) The affidavits in 
support of the motion for summary judgment were not attached to the motion at 
the time it was filed.

(b) No request to enlarge 
the time for filing was made prior to the expiration of the ten-day statutory 
period.

(c) No motion was made 
within the ten-day period to permit late filing because of excusable 
neglect.

[¶8.]     In DeHerrera v. Memorial Hospital of Carbon 
Cty., Wyo., 590 P.2d 1342, 1344 (1979), we said 
that

"* * * the court can 
exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b) only if a request to do so is made [and 
that a failure to make a request was `determinative' of the question]. * * *" 
(Emphasis omitted.)

And where, after 
expiration of the originally prescribed period, a party made no showing of 
excusable neglect nor good cause for failure to file the motion contemplated, we 
held that the court properly refused to consider the affidavits offered. Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo., 625 P.2d 747 
(1981). Thus, appellees' failure to make an appropriate request or file the 
motion contemplated is determinative in this case. The court should not have 
received nor considered appellees' affidavits presented and filed on the day of 
the hearing.

[¶9.]     The Rules of Civil 
Procedure provide an orderly process for the determination of controversies. 
They are intended to provide notice to a party of the other's contentions, a 
fair opportunity to discover and develop the entire case and meet those 
contentions, and to avoid surprise - all to the end that a just result is more 
probable. To condone a practice which permits parties to simply ignore the rules 
will defeat their purpose. Thus, where the moving party, as in this case, has 
failed to comply, there is not often a reasonable justification for the failure. 
He is in control of the situation. He can file his motion for summary judgment 
at any time he chooses. Ordinarily he should not file it nor set it for hearing 
until it is ready to be heard. When he undertakes to do otherwise, and the 
decision is against him or the hearing must be vacated, he has only himself to 
blame.

[¶10.]  We examine the record now to determine 
if, leaving out of consideration the late-filed affidavits, there were before 
the court material facts about which there were no genuine issues, as would 
permit entry of the summary judgment. Request for Admissions was served upon 
appellants February 16, 1983. Attached to the Request for Admissions were the 
promissory note of appellants, mortgage, and letter of notice of default and 
demand for payment. Answer to Request for Admissions was filed by appellees on 
March 16, 1983, the date of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The 
Answer to Request for Admissions was properly before the court for consideration 
at the summary judgment hearing. It establishes the execution of the promissory 
note and mortgage, the fact of non-payment, the amount due and interest, notice 
of default and demand, and all elements necessary to entry of summary judgment. 
There was nothing before the court upon which attorneys fees could be awarded, 
except the late-filed affidavit of appellees' attorney; and we have already held 
that this affidavit should not have been considered by the 
court.

[¶11.]  The summary judgment granted appellees, 
therefore, is in all respects affirmed except that portion of it awarding 
attorneys fees to appellees' attorney which is reversed. This case, therefore, 
is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with 
this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1 Rule 6(d), W.R.C.P., 
provides:

"(d) For motions; affidavits. - A written 
motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing 
thereof shall be served not later than 5 days before the time specified for the 
hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of the 
court. Such an order may for cause shown be made on ex parte application. When a 
motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion; 
and, except as otherwise provided in Rule 59(c), opposing affidavits may be 
served not later than 1 day before the hearing, unless the court permits them to 
be served at some other time."

2 Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P., 
states:

"(c) Motion and proceedings thereon. - The 
motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. 
The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The 
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, 
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. * * 
*"

3 Rule 6(b), W.R.C.P., 
provides:

"(b) Enlargement. - When by these rules or by 
a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to 
be done at or within a specified time, the court, or a commissioner thereof, for 
cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or 
notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the 
expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous 
order or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period 
permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable 
neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b), 
52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), 60(b), 72.1, 73(a) and (g), and 75(b), except to the 
extent and under the conditions stated in them. (Rule 7, 
D.Ct.)"