Title: Romberger v. VFW Post 1881

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Romberger v. VFW Post 18811996 WY 86918 P.2d 993Case Number: 95-115, 95-116Decided: 06/25/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Larry 
ROMBERGER, d/b/a Southwest Bingo Supplies, 

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

VFW 
POST 1881, 

Appellee 
(Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff), 

and

 Bronco Bingo, Inc., a Wyoming 
Corporation, and Ken Runion, 

Appellees 
(Third Party Defendants).

 

VFW 
POST 1881, 

Appellant 
(Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff),

v.

Larry 
ROMBERGER, d/b/a Southwest Bingo Supplies,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County, Edward L.

Billie 
Ruth Edwards of Edwards & Johnson, Cheyenne, for Larry Romberger, d/b/a 
Southwest Bingo Supplies.

W.A. 
Swainson, Cheyenne, and Philip White, Jr., Laramie, for VFW Post 1881. 

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Filing in its 
capacity as a charitable organization, VFW Post 1881 obtained a gaming permit 
from the City of Cheyenne to operate a bingo and pull tab enterprise. Through 
various agreements, VFW Post 1881 engaged the services of Bronco Bingo, Inc. to 
finance and conduct the business. Bronco Bingo, Inc., in turn, purchased their 
supplies from Larry Romberger. The venture failed and the participants fell upon 
each other in a most uncharitable fashion. Larry Romberger sued VFW Post 1881 
for the cost of those supplies, whereupon VFW Post 1881 sought to implead Bronco 
Bingo, Inc. Finding a belated, prospective guarantee, the district court ordered 
VFW Post 1881 to partially reimburse Larry Romberger. Larry Romberger appealed. 
We affirm the district court in Case No. 95-115 and dismiss Case No. 95-116 as 
untimely.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      In Case No. 
95-115, appellant, Larry Romberger, d/b/a Southwest Bingo Supplies (Romberger), 
states a single issue:

1.         
Did the lower court err in not finding VFW Post 1881 solely responsible 
under         
Wyoming gaming laws for the gaming supplies purchased by Bronco Bingo 
from Larry Romberger dba Southwest Bingo Supplies?

[¶3]      Appellee, VFW 
Post 1881, chose not to state issues in Case No. 95-115 as permitted by W.R.A.P. 
7.02.

II. 
FACTS

[¶4]      Notwithstanding 
the City of Cheyenne's issuance of a 1989 gaming license to "VFW Post 1881 d/b/a 
Bronco Bingo," VFW Post 1881 denies intent to become an active participant in 
the bingo operation. Initially, VFW Post 1881 tried profit sharing with a gaming 
operator. To preserve appearances of propriety, VFW Post 1881 later entered into 
an employment contract and agreement with Bronco Bingo, 
Inc.

[¶5]      Eventually, the 
contract and agreement involved VFW Post 1881 and Bronco Bingo, Inc., as 
operated by successor in interest Ken Runion (Runion). A purveyor of gaming 
devices and equipment, Romberger sold bingo supplies to Bronco Bingo, 
Inc.

[¶6]      Checks issued by 
Bronco Bingo, Inc. required three signatures - those of Runion and two VFW Post 
1881 officials. However, VFW Post 1881 representatives routinely signed blank 
checks for free use by Runion. In addition, Romberger and Runion eschewed 
standard reimbursement procedures, choosing "to do a little side deal and some 
invoices were torn up[.]" Bronco Bingo's bookkeeper 
testified:

Mr. 
Runion would tell me that he had some dealings with Mr. Romberger and that if 
they panned out that it would wipe clean all the debt that he had with Mr. 
Romberger. After they were together, you know, they would come in and say these 
invoices or so much amount of dollars would be torn up and that that was 
considered paid in full. Mr. Runion never would give me a directive as to how I 
was to handle that in the books. So it was just left that basically some of the 
merchandise was brought in and was never paid for.

[¶7]      Romberger neither 
alleged nor demonstrated any contractual arrangement with VFW Post 1881 or 
Bronco Bingo, Inc. However, at some point in October of 1989, Romberger refused 
to deliver supplies until payment was guaranteed. At that time, Reuben 
Altergott, a VFW Post 1881 officer, stepped in to guarantee VFW Post 1881 
payment for the supplies. Since the date of that guarantee could not be pinned 
down, the district court awarded Romberger the value of supplies delivered in 
the months following October, to be paid by VFW Post 1881 and Runion, the latter 
being noteworthy only for his non-appearance.

[¶8]      Judgment was 
entered on March 22, 1995. On April 21, 1995, Romberger filed a timely notice of 
appeal in Case No. 95-115. On May 9, 1995, eighteen days after Romberger filed 
his notice of appeal, VFW Post 1881 attempted to file both a cross appeal and a 
third party plaintiff's appeal. 

III. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶9]      Relying upon the 
"cold record of the trial," we are seldom inclined to disturb a district court's 
decisions regarding witness credibility. Matter of SKJ, 673 P.2d 640, 642 (Wyo. 
1983). Where testimony is conflicting, the finding of the trial court should not 
be disturbed, unless such finding is against the great weight of the evidence 
and clearly erroneous. Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255, 1260 (Wyo. 1995); 
Williams v. Yocum, 37 Wyo. 432, 444, 263 P. 607, 611 (1928). "A finding is 
`clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing 
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that 
a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948) (quoted with approval in 
Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo. 1993)) (emphasis 
added). It is appellant's burden to show that the district court erred, either 
in determination of facts or the judgment rendered. Hopper, 861 P.2d  at 538; 
Lucksinger v. Salisbury, 72 Wyo. 164, 183, 262 P.2d 396, 403 (1953). Finally, 
failure to file a timely appeal necessitates dismissal. W.R.A.P. 1.03 and 2.01. 
See Miller v. Murdock, 788 P.2d 614, 616 (Wyo. 1990) (decided under old 
rules).

IV. 
DISCUSSION

[¶10]   The cornerstone of Romberger's 
argument is that VFW Post 1881, d/b/a Bronco Bingo, and Bronco Bingo, Inc., 
under the guidance of Runion, were a joint venture. Under this theory, VFW Post 
1881 would be liable for all supplies purchased by Runion.

[¶11]   Joint ventures may be inferred from 
the conduct of the parties, their transactions and the surrounding 
circumstances, but always include a promise to share in both the profits and 
losses occasioned by the endeavor. True v. Hi-Plains Elevator Machinery, Inc., 
577 P.2d 991, 997 (Wyo. 1978). Additionally, each party must have "an equal 
voice in control and direction of the undertaking." Hill v. Zimmerer, 839 P.2d 977, 981 (Wyo. 1992). Existence of a joint venture is "preeminently a question 
for the finder of fact[.]" Id. at 982 (citing Robinson Transp. Co. v. 
Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 385 P.2d 203, 205 (Wyo. 1963)).

[¶12]   The contract afforded Runion ninety 
percent of the net profits. While the district court found "no agreement to 
share equally in the profits and losses and * * * no equality of operational 
control," the conclusion is inescapable that there was no agreement to share 
losses in any ratio. There was no joint venture.

[¶13]   The district court found a clear 
and definite promise by Reuben Altergott on behalf of VFW Post 1881 to pay 
Romberger for supplies; that Romberger relied upon that promise to deliver 
further bingo supplies; and, that the equities of the transaction support 
enforcement of that promise for supplies delivered in November and December of 
1989. Thus formulated, the theory supporting limited recovery by Romberger is 
that of promissory estoppel. See, e.g., Verschoor v. Mountain West Farm Bureau 
Mut. Ins. Co., 907 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Wyo. 1995) and cases cited 
therein.

[¶14]   Limited recovery is consistent with 
theoretical underpinnings of promissory estoppel. Recovery is not a matter of 
contract, but is predicated on the promisee's change in position, to his 
detriment, as a consequence of the promise made. Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, 
Inc., 26 Wis.2d 683, 133 N.W.2d 267, 276-77 (1965). The amount of recovery is a 
question intertwined with the equities of the transaction, necessarily creating 
a policy question to be decided by the court in the exercise of its discretion. 
Id. 133 N.W.2d  at 275. Here, the district court could not ascertain when in 
October of 1989 the promise was made, and therefore decided it should be binding 
only for those months following October. The result is well within the 
discretion of the district court and an appropriate distribution of the equities 
of the transaction.

[¶15]   With respect to case No. 95-116, 
VFW Post 1881's notice of appeal was filed eighteen days outside the thirty days 
allowed by W.R.A.P. 2.01(a) for direct appeals. As a cross appeal, the notice 
was filed one day outside the fifteen days within the first notice of appeal 
afforded by W.R.A.P. 2.01(a)(ii). No effort was made to show excusable neglect 
and we find none in the record. Case No. 95-116 is 
dismissed.

V. 
CONCLUSION

[¶16]   The judgment of the district court 
in Case No. 95-115 is affirmed in all respects. Case No. 95-116 is dismissed as 
untimely filed.