Title: Osborn v. Estate of Manning

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Osborn v. Estate of Manning1998 WY 146968 P.2d 932Case Number: 98-191Decided: 12/07/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

Richard OSBORN, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

ESTATE OF Clarice Lyle MANNING, 
Deceased, Appellee (Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District Court, 
Natrona County, W. Thomas Sullins, J.

 

Richard B. Osborn, Pro Se, 
Natrona, Wyoming, for Appellant.

Donald L. Painter, Casper, 
Wyoming, for Appellee.

 

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

 * Retired November 2, 1998.

 

MACY, 
Justice.

 [¶1] The district court granted a judgment as a 
matter of law in favor of Appellee Estate of Clarice Manning (the estate). It 
subsequently amended the judgment, and Appellant Richard Osborn appeals from 
that order.

 

[¶2] We 
affirm.

 

                                             
ISSUES

 

[¶3] Osborn presents fifteen 
issues in his pro se brief. His numerous issues can, however, be condensed into 
two issues:

 

I. 
Whether the district court erred in granting a judgment as a matter of law on 
Osborn's claim for maintenance of a fence.

 

II. Whether the district court erred in granting a 
judgment as a matter of law on Osborn's claim for personal property 
damage.

 

                                              
FACTS

 

[¶4] In March 1997, Osborn 
filed two claims with the estate. In his first claim, he requested payment for 
maintaining the fence during the years 1991 through 1996 that partitioned his 
property from the Manning property. In his second claim, Osborn sought payment 
for the personal property damage that resulted from Manning's unauthorized 
construction of a fence next to a roadway. He asserted that the fence restricted 
the free flow of surface water and caused the roadway to flood. The 
administrator of the estate denied Osborn's claims, and Osborn filed a complaint 
in the district court on May 1, 1997.

 

[¶5] The district court held 
a bench trial on March 13, 1998. Ignoring the judge's advice, Osborn represented 
himself at the trial. After Osborn rested his case, the estate moved for a 
judgment as a matter of law on both of Osborn's claims. The district court 
granted the estate's motion, concluding that Osborn did not establish that he 
had standing to bring the lawsuit and was the real party in interest.  The district court also determined that, 
as a matter of law, Osborn did not present competent evidence to support either 
claim.

 

[¶6] Osborn filed an 
objection to the district court's judgment, and the district court amended its 
judgment by deleting its findings that Osborn did not have standing and was not 
the real party in interest. Osborn subsequently filed his notice of appeal with 
the Wyoming Supreme Court.1

 

                                           
DISCUSSION

 

[¶7] Osborn contends that 
the district court erred by granting a judgment as a matter of law in favor of 
the estate. His contentions are abstruse and, in many places, impossible to 
follow. Additionally, Osborn's briefs are replete with citations that are not 
relevant to the legal issues presented in this case. This Court has consistently 
refused to consider contentions that are not supported by pertinent authority or 
cogent argument. See, e.g., Connell v. Barrett, 949 P.2d 871, 874 (Wyo. 1997); 
Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo. 1995). We will not, therefore, 
consider Osborn's issues because he failed to cite to pertinent authority or 
present cogent argument in his briefs.

 

[¶8] The fact that Osborn is 
representing himself does not excuse his failure to comply with this Court's 
minimum standards.

 

[I]n the absence of the citation of pertinent 
authority or cogent argument, we will not afford relief to an appellant. While 
it is permissible under our system for litigants to represent themselves, such 
litigants do not receive any special benefit in the examination of papers that 
are presented to this court including briefs.

 

Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock 
Board, 851 P.2d 769, 772 (Wyo. 1993) (citation and footnote omitted). See also 
Boyd v. Nation, 909 P.2d 323, 326 (Wyo. 1996).

 

[¶10] On September 15, 1998, 
the estate filed a motion with this Court, claiming that Osborn's appeal was 
unfounded and asking that Osborn be ordered to pay for its attorney's fees and 
costs. On September 29, 1998, we denied the estate's motion; however, we 
reserved the authority to make a later determination concerning the estate's 
right under W.R.A.P. 10.05 to be awarded attorney's fees and 
costs.

 

[¶11] This Court may award 
attorney's fees and costs to an appellee pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05 when the 
appellant does not present pertinent authority or cogent argument in his brief. 
Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960, 965 (Wyo. 1996). Osborn is very familiar with 
this Court's authority to award attorney's fees and costs to an appellee when 
the appellant's appeal is frivolous. Id.; Osborn v. Pine Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Wyo. 1989); Osborn v. Warner, 694 P.2d 730, 734 (Wyo. 
1985).

 

[¶12] The estate attached 
its attorney's affidavit to its motion, which stated that the estate had 
incurred $618 in attorney's fees and costs in defending this appeal. We conclude 
that the amount is reasonable, and, consequently, we grant the estate's motion 
and order Osborn to pay $618 as provided in W.R.A.P. 
10.05.

 

[¶13] 
Affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

  1Osborn and the Manning family have a 
long history of litigating various disputes. See, e.g., Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960 (Wyo. 1996); Osborn v. Manning, 817 P.2d 889 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. 
Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208 (Wyo. 1990); 
Osborn v. Manning, 685 P.2d 1121 (Wyo. 1984). Osborn was also the infamous 
plaintiff in Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 870 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1994), and Osborn v. 
Emporium Videos, 848 P.2d 237 (Wyo. 1993).