Case Title: DAVID VEILE V. MICHAEL BRYANT, and BRYANT FUNERAL HOME, INC.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
DAVID VEILE V. MICHAEL BRYANT, and BRYANT FUNERAL HOME, INC.2005 WY 150123 P.3d 562Case Number: 05-48Decided: 11/28/2005
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
DAVID 
VEILE,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
MICHAEL 
BRYANT, and

BRYANT 
FUNERAL HOME, INC.

 
 
Appellees

(Respondents).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofWashakieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

David 
Veile, Pro Se

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Michael 
Bryant, Pro Se, and Francisco L. Romero, Ft. Collins, Colorado

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, BURKE, JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      David Veile 
appeals from a district court order denying his motion for payment of costs for 
his appeal in Veile v. Bryant, 2004 
WY 107, 97 P.3d 787 (Wyo. 2004).  
Finding Veile's argument on appeal to be without merit, we affirm the 
order of the district court and, finding no reasonable cause for this appeal, 
award sanctions against Veile.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Veile presents 
this statement of the issue:

 
 
Should 
the district court's order denying payment of costs to Appellant Veile be 
reversed because it violates:

 
 

A)                
the 
Wyoming Supreme Court's Mandate Reversing Judgment?; 
and/or

 
 
B)        Rule 
10.04, Wyoming 
Rules of Appellate   
Procedure?

 
 
Appellee 
Michael Bryant rephrases the issue as follows:

 
 
Is Veile 
entitled to costs on appeal when he is not the prevailing party and did not move 
for costs in this Court?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Veile and Bryant 
operate competing funeral homes in Worland, Wyoming.  
In 1996, Veile filed a complaint with the Wyoming State Board of 
Embalming (Board) against Bryant and Bryant Funeral Home alleging numerous 
violations of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-16-310 (LexisNexis 2005).  After investigation by the Board's 
investigative committee, the Board closed the case for lack of evidence of any 
violation by Bryant.  In 1998, Veile 
filed a petition with the Board alleging Bryant had capped, steered and/or 
solicited funeral business in violation of § 33-16-310, requesting revocation or 
suspension of Bryant's license, and requesting reimbursement of Veile for the 
costs incurred in filing the petition.  
Veile filed the petition pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-16-311 
(LexisNexis 2005), which allows such a petition to be filed by the Attorney 
General, the county attorney of the county in which the licensee resides, or "by 
any citizen residing in this state."

 
 
[¶4]      After protracted 
legal maneuvering, a hearing on Veile's petition was held before the Board in 
2002.  At the close of Veile's 
evidence, the Board granted Bryant's motion for a directed verdict finding Veile 
failed to present sufficient evidence to support his allegations.  Veile filed a petition for review with 
the district court.  The district 
court dismissed the petition for review holding that the hearing before the 
Board was not a contested case hearing under the Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act.  The district court 
characterized the hearing as an investigation after which the Board found no 
basis to prosecute Veile's claims.  
The district court reasoned that because the hearing was not a contested 
case hearing under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, the court did not 
have jurisdiction to consider Veile's petition for judicial 
review.

 
 
[¶5]      Veile appealed 
the district court's decision to this Court.  We reversed the district court's ruling 
that the hearing before the Board was not a contested case hearing and held that 
the Court did have jurisdiction to hear Veile's appeal.  Veile, ¶ 14, 97 P.3d  at 793.  In this Court's ruling on the merits of 
Veile's appeal, though, we upheld in all respects the Board's finding that Veile 
had presented insufficient evidence to prove his case against Bryant, and we 
affirmed the Board's decision denying all relief requested by Veile.  Id., ¶¶ 16, 26, 
97 P.3d  at 796, 799.

 
 
[¶6]      On September 30, 
2004, this Court issued its "Mandate Reversing Judgment," which provided that 
"[c]osts are awarded to the prevailing party."  On November 3, 2004, Veile filed in 
district court a "Motion for Order of Payment of Costs Pursuant to Wyoming 
Supreme Court's Mandate Reversing Judgment," seeking to recover $1,698.80 in 
costs.  On January 3, 2005, the 
district court issued an order denying Veile's motion for payment of costs.  In so ordering, the district court ruled 
that "Mr. Veile is not the prevailing party in the Supreme Court matter and 
because of the uniqueness of the Supreme Court's opinion in the matter, Rule 
10.04, W.R.A.P., is not applicable . . . ."  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶7]      This Court 
ordered in its mandate that costs were awarded to the prevailing party.  The determination of which party is the 
prevailing party is a question of law, and our standard of review for questions 
of law is de novo.  See Gray v. Stratton Real Estate, 2001 WY 
125, ¶ 5, 36 P.3d 1127, 1128 (Wyo. 2001).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶8]      Veile contends 
the district court erred in finding that he was not the prevailing party in Veile, 2004 WY 107, 97 P.3d 787.  In support of this contention, Veile 
argues that he "clearly improved his position by appealing the District Court's 
Dismissal to this Court."  We 
disagree.

 
 
[¶9]      In considering 
whether a party should be awarded costs as a prevailing party in litigation, we 
have defined "prevailing party" according to the 
following:

 
 
A party 
should not be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of taxing costs unless 
the party improves his or her position by the litigation. * * *  To hold otherwise would encourage 
unnecessary litigation.

 
 

Schaub 
v. Wilson, 969 P.2d 552, 561 (Wyo. 1998).  Our decision in Veile cannot reasonably be read to have 
improved Veile's position in any way in his petition against 
Bryant.

 
 
[¶10]   Veile's position in his litigation 
against Bryant was that which he presented to the Board: that Bryant had engaged 
in unlawful funeral practices; that Bryant's license should be revoked or 
suspended; and that the Board should reimburse Veile for expenses he incurred in 
pursuing his action before the Board.  
The Board found against Veile on all of his claims.  The district court, on the other hand, 
took no position on the merits of Veile's claims and instead dismissed Veile's 
petition for review after finding it did not have jurisdiction to consider the 
petition.  We disagreed with the 
district court and took jurisdiction of Veile's appeal.  We then, however, ruled against Veile on 
all of his claims and upheld the Board's decision in its entirety.  The effect of the district court's 
decision, had it stood, would have been to leave in place the Board's decision 
denying Veile all relief he requested.  
Although we disagreed with the district court's reasoning, the effect of 
our decision on Veile was the same.  
We affirmed the Board's finding that Veile had not proven his case 
against Bryant, and we upheld the Board's decision denying Veile all requested 
relief.  Veile clearly did not 
improve his position in his litigation against Bryant through his appeal to this 
Court.

 
 
[¶11]   As a final issue, Bryant claims 
that there is no reasonable cause for this appeal and this Court should award 
sanctions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.  
"Generally, this Court is reluctant to impose sanctions, but we will make 
such an award in those rare circumstances where an appellate brief lacks cogent 
argument, is devoid of pertinent authority to support the claims of error, 
and/or fails to make adequate references to the record."  Gray, ¶ 11, 36 P.3d  at 1129-30.  In this case the lack of any cogent 
argument to support the appeal provides the circumstance making sanctions 
appropriate.

 
 
[¶12]   As explained above, this Court in 
its Veile decision ruled against 
Veile on all of his claims of Board error.  
Veile's interests in his litigation against Bryant were in no way 
vindicated through his appeal to this Court, and no reasonable argument could be 
proffered to support his request for payment of costs.  We can discern no good faith legal basis 
for this action, and we do not excuse pro se litigants from the requirement that 
an appeal be supported by cogent argument.  
See Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo. 2003).  We 
therefore certify that there is no reasonable basis for this appeal and that 
sanctions are appropriate.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶13]   We agree with the district court 
that Veile was not a prevailing party entitled to an award of costs following 
our decision in Veile.  We therefore affirm the district court's 
order denying Veile's motion for payment of costs.  Bryant shall submit a statement of costs 
and attorney's fees associated with responding to this appeal.  Upon review, we will award an 
appropriate amount in the form of sanctions.