Case Title: JOHN THORKILDSEN V. MARGOT BELDEN, and FISH CREEK DESIGN, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-09-0154

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
JOHN THORKILDSEN V. MARGOT BELDEN, and FISH CREEK DESIGN, LLC2010 WY 17223 P.3d 1291Case Number: S-09-0154Decided: 02/19/2010
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
JOHN 
THORKILDSEN,Appellant(Defendant),v.MARGOT BELDEN, 
and FISH CREEK DESIGN, 
LLC,Appellees(Plaintiffs).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

David 
G. Lewis of Jackson, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Richard 
J. Mulligan of Mulligan Law Office; Heather Noble of Jackson, 
Wyoming.

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      John Thorkildsen 
(Thorkildsen) appeals from the district court's Order Granting Defendants' 
Motion for Costs, arguing that the district court erred in not including an 
award for attorney's fees.  Finding 
no contested issue on appeal in regard to costs, and being unable to determine 
the district court's resolution of the issue of attorney's fees, we will remand 
with instructions for the district court to make findings of facts and 
conclusions of law relating to an award or denial of attorney's fees. 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Whether the 
district court's failure to address attorney's fees in its Order Granting 
Defendants' Motion for Costs presents this Court with a contested issue for 
review?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The facts and 
procedural history of this case are more complex than the resolution of the 
single issue presented on appeal.1  This case has been before this Court on 
two prior occasions.  See Belden v. Thorkildsen, 2007 WY 68, 
156 P.3d 320 (Wyo. 2007) (Belden I); 
 Belden v. Thorkildsen, 2008 WY 145, 197 P.3d 148 (Wyo. 2008) (Belden II). 
 Following Belden II, Thorkildsen filed a Motion of 
Defendants for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs, seeking an award of attorney's 
fees in the amount of $77,475 and costs in the amount of $2,070.09.2  Thorkildsen's request was pursuant to a 
provision in an LLC Operating Agreement (Agreement), which was the focus of the 
litigation in Belden I and Belden II.  The Agreement allowed for the recovery 
of attorney's fees and costs by a prevailing party forced to defend a suit 
alleging breach of the Agreement.  
The appellees opposed the request arguing that "the fees sought were not 
limited to those incurred litigating damage claims under the LLC's Operating 
Agreement" and that Thorkildsen failed to segregate the "fees incurred 
litigating issues encompassed by the contractual attorney's fees provision from 
fees incurred litigating other issues."  
In response to Thorkildsen's motion, the district court entered an Order 
Granting Defendants' Motion for Costs.  
As the title of the district court's order implies, the order only 
awarded costs in the amount of $2,070.90, and wholly failed to address the 
attorney's fees issue.  Thorkildsen 
now appeals from that order.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶4]      Thorkildsen 
argues that the district court's order awarding costs but failing to address or 
award attorney's fees amounted to an implicit denial of an award of attorney's 
fees and such action was error.  
Thorkildsen fails to cite any case law to support his argument that the 
district court's failure to address attorney's fees amounts to an "implicit 
denial."  Thorkildsen's argument 
appears to be one founded in W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2), which rule dictates that certain 
motions "be deemed denied" if not acted on by the district court within 90 days 
of being filed.  However, W.R.C.P. 
6(c)(2) provides only that motions filed pursuant to "Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 
52(b), 59 and 60(b), not determined within 90 days after filing shall be deemed 
denied . . . ."  A motion for costs 
and attorney's fees does not fall within any of the rules which are subject to 
the "deemed denied" provision in W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2).  Consequently, we find unpersuasive 
Thorkildsen's argument that the portion of his motion pertaining to attorney's 
fees was "implicitly denied" or "deemed denied" by the district court's failure 
to address attorney's fees in its order awarding costs.  

 
 
[¶5]      Because the 
district court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Costs only addresses 
costs, the district court made no findings of facts and reached no conclusions 
of law with respect to attorney's fees.  
Thus, Thorkildsen has been left to appeal only from an award of costs 
that he does not challenge.  We find 
the appropriate remedy is to remand this case to the district court with 
instructions to make appropriate findings of facts and conclusions of law 
relating to the issue of attorney's fees.3

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1In an attempt to simplify the factual history of this case we have left 
out several facts.  However, none of 
the factual omissions are material to the outcome of this 
case.

  

2We note that in his affidavit filed concurrently with his motion, 
Thorkildsen lists numerous items and their corresponding costs for which he 
sought reimbursement and determined the total cost of these items to be 
$2,070.90; however, we calculated that total to be $2,020.09.  This mathematical anomaly is 
inconsequential to our decision as the parties do not contest the district 
court's award of costs.

 
 

3We take this opportunity to note one particular issue that the district 
court must resolve with respect to an award of attorney's fees.  If in fact the appellant is entitled to 
attorney's fees under the Agreement, a determination must be made as to which 
fees were attributable to actions or claims relating to the Agreement between 
the parties and which, if any fees, were related to other legal services, as 
segregation of fees is required when possible.  See Jensen v. Fremont Motors Cody, Inc., 
2002 WY 173, ¶ 33, 58 P.3d 322, 330 (Wyo. 2002).