Case Title: CHANCLER v. MEREDITH

Citation: 

Docket Number: 03-92

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
CHANCLER v. MEREDITH2004 WY 2786 P.3d 841Case Number: 03-92Decided: 03/22/2004
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2003

 

                                                                                                
   

 

JIM 
CHANCLER, d/b/a  
LONE

WOLF 
CONSTRUCTION,

 

Appellant(Plaintiff) 
,

 

v.

 

VICKI 
L. MEREDITH,

 

Appellee(Defendant) 
.

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

The 
Honorable Nancy Guthrie, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Jody 
L. Chance, Law Office of Jody Chance, Jackson, Wyoming

 

Representing 
Appellee:

William 
P. Schwartz of Ranck & Schwartz, Jackson, Wyoming

 

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

 

 

            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 

[¶1]      Appellant, Jim 
Chancler, d/b/a Lone Wolf Construction (Lone Wolf), seeks review of a judgment 
of the district court that was entered after a trial to the court.  In that judgment, Appellee, Vicki L. 
Meredith (Meredith), was awarded damages arising out of a contract dispute 
involving the remodeling of her home.  
Lone Wolf contends that the district court erred in finding it breached 
the warranty contained in the construction contract, erred in finding that Lone 
Wolf had abandoned the job, erred in failing to properly consider Meredith's 
writing wherein she conceded she owed Lone Wolf the contractor's fee, abused its 
discretion by making an award of architect fees, and erred in awarding the cost 
of repairs to Meredith.  Meredith 
defends the appeal on the basis that Lone Wolf failed to cause a transcript of 
the trial proceedings to be prepared and, under the applicable standard of 
review, this Court is compelled to affirm the district court and award her 
costs, attorney's fees, and a penalty because there is no reasonable cause for 
Lone Wolf's appeal.  We will affirm 
and award Meredith her costs on appeal and attorney's 
fees.

 

 

[¶2]      Lone Wolf poses 
these issues for our consideration:

 

            
1.  Did the district court err in finding that Lone Wolf 
breached the warranty that the work and materials supplied by him would be free 
of defects?

            
2.  Did the district court err in finding that Lone Wolf had 
abandoned the job?

            
3.  Did the district court err in not considering that Meredith 
had signed a document stating she owed Lone Wolf the contractor's 
fee?

            
4.  Was the district court's award of architect fees an abuse 
of discretion?

            
5.  Did the district court err in awarding the cost of any 
repairs to Meredith?

 

Meredith 
does not address the issues submitted by Lone Wolf.  Instead she contends that because there 
is no record of the trial proceedings, there is no basis for this Court to 
substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.  In addition, she asserts that the appeal 
is without merit because there is no record, thus entitling her to an award of 
costs, attorney's fees, and a penalty under W.R.A.P. 
10.05.

 

 

[¶3]      From the record 
we are able to discern the following things.  Lone Wolf filed a complaint in the 
district court on November 29, 2000, alleging breach of contract, or a quasi 
contract, and seeking damages in the amount of $16,438.00.  A copy of the contract was admitted at 
trial, and it is in the record.  On 
December 15, 2000, Meredith filed an answer and counterclaim essentially denying 
all of the allegations of the complaint and seeking damages in an unspecified 
amount for breach of contract and/or negligence.  Lone Wolf answered the counterclaim on 
January 3, 2001.  On March 12, 2003, 
the district court entered its judgment reciting that the trial was held on 
February 18, 2003, enumerating its finding of facts in favor of Meredith, and 
awarding her a judgment for $17,172.64.  
The record also contains a note written by Meredith, with no specific 
addressee on it, stating:  "I 
promise to pay the general contractor's fee less deductibles that have arisen 
during construction."  The note is 
dated February 14, 2000.  In 
addition, the record contains 40 pages of otherwise unexplained pictorial and 
documentary exhibits that were admitted in evidence during the 
trial.

 

[¶4]      In its brief, 
Lone Wolf sets out its version of what transpired at trial.  As an initial step in our analysis we 
will note that W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2) requires that an appellant include in its 
brief "[a] statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review 
with appropriate references to documents listed in the index of the transmitted 
record."  In circumstances where 
trial errors are raised as issues, one of those documents will customarily be a 
transcript of the trial proceedings, or some alternative substitute for the 
transcript, such as a statement of evidence or proceedings where no transcript 
is available.  See W.R.A.P. 
3.013.04.  In this case, we have no 
transcript or any substitute for the transcript.

 

 

[¶5]      The applicable 
standard of review has been summarized as follows:

 

In 
the record on appeal, there is no transcript from the damages phase of the 
trial.  It is the appellant's burden 
to bring us a complete record on which to base a decision.  Ahearn v. Ahearn, 993 P.2d 942, 
949 (Wyo.1999); Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld, 920 P.2d 662, 663 
(Wyo.1996).  When no transcript has 
been made of trial proceedings, this court accepts the trial court's findings as 
being the only basis for deciding the issues which pertain to the evidence.  Willowbrook Ranch, Inc. v. Nugget 
Exploration, Inc., 896 P.2d 769, 771 (Wyo.1995); Armstrong v. 
Pickett, 865 P.2d 49, 50 (Wyo.1993).  
In the absence of anything to refute them, we will sustain the trial 
court's findings, and we assume that the evidence presented was sufficient to 
support those findings.    
Willowbrook Ranch, Inc.  

v. 
Nugget Exploration, Inc., 
896 P.2d at 771;  Osborn v. Pine 
Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165, 1167 (Wyo.1989).  Here, because there is nothing in the 
record to refute the district court's finding on damages, we affirm the award of 
damages.

 

G.C.I. 
Inc. v. Haught, 
7 P.3d 906, 911 (Wyo. 2000); also see Dobson v. Stahla, 2003 WY 6N, ¶8, 
63 P.3d 209, ¶8 (Wyo. 2003).

 

 

[¶6]      Our thorough 
examination of Lone Wolf's brief discloses that all of its contentions rely upon 
the facts of this case as they were presented to the district court at 
trial.  Therefore, the standard of 
review mandates that we affirm the district court's 
judgment.

 

 

[¶7]      Because of Lone 
Wolf's failings in this appeal, Meredith asks that we invoke the provisions of 
W.R.A.P. 10.05 (costs and penalties on affirmance), which provide this 
guidance:

 

If 
the judgment or appealable order is affirmed in a civil case, appellee shall 
recover the cost for publication of the brief with the cost to be computed at 
the rate allowed by law for making the transcript of the evidence.  If the court certifies there was no 
reasonable cause for the appeal, a reasonable amount for attorneys' fees and 
damages to the appellee shall be fixed by the appellate court and taxed as part 
of the costs in the case.  The 
amount for attorneys' fees shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) 
nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).  The amount for damages to the appellee 
shall not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).

 

[¶8]      Because there is 
no transcript, there is no reasonable cause for Lone Wolf's appeal, and we so 
certify.  Meredith attached to her 
brief an affidavit from her attorney avowing that her costs on appeal were 
$41.95 and that her attorney's fees were $1,700.00 (ten hours x $170.00 per 
hour).  We conclude that these costs 
and attorney's fees are reasonable and award them to Meredith.  Meredith also asks that we award damages 
(penalties).   Meredith does 
not set out any basis for damages, or penalties, other than her costs and 
attorney's fees.  Thus, we conclude 
that damages or penalties are unnecessary because the award of costs and 
attorney's fees fully vindicates this Court's interest in enforcing the rules of 
appellate procedure.

 

 

[¶9]      The district 
court's judgment is affirmed.  
Meredith is awarded costs in the amount of $41.95 and attorney's fees of 
$1,700.00 (total $1,741.95) and judgment is entered to that 
effect.