Title: Shanor v. A-Pac, Ltd.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Shanor v. A-Pac, Ltd.1986 WY 2711 P.2d 420Case Number: 85-67Decided: 01/03/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming
ROGER E. SHANOR AND DONALD W. SHANOR, APPELLANTS 
(DEFENDANTS),

 
 
v. 

 
 
A-PAC, LTD., A WYOMING 
CORPORATION, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

 
 
 
 
Appeal from the District Court,TetonCounty, Robert B. Ranck, 
J.

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

Henry F. Bailey, Jr. 
(argued) of Loomis, Lazear, Wilson & Pickett, Cheyenne.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:  

Robert W. Horn, on brief, 
Jackson. 

 
 

Before THOMAS, C.J., 
ROONEY,* BROWN, and CARDINE, JJ., and 
GUTHRIE, J., 
Retired.

* Retired November 30, 
1985.

GUTHRIE, Justice, 
Retired.

 
 

[¶1.]     Appellants come here 
seeking the reversal of a summary judgment and to have the case remanded for 
further proceedings. The judgment at which this appeal is directed granted 
appellee herein a joint and several judgment against these appellants in the 
amount of $3,150 for rentals, plus the sum of $472.50 for a late charge, and 
attorney's fees and costs in the sum $1,207.50.

 
 

[¶2.]     It being the Court's 
view that the motion for summary judgment was not properly supported by the 
affidavit filed with it, and there not being any admissions in the pleadings 
which would supplement this showing other than as hereinafter set out, the 
judgment was improvidently granted and without proper support in the evidence. 
This case must then be reversed.

 
 

[¶3.]     This Court steps into 
the shoes of the trial court in a review of this character and must determine 
from the record if there was sufficient evidence or showing to justify the entry 
of a judgment herein. Hickey v. Burnett, Wyo., 707 P.2d 741 (1985); Reno Livestock 
Corporation v. Sun Oil Company (Delaware), 
Wyo., 638 P.2d 147 (1981). There is a definite burden upon the movant to demonstrate the 
entitlement to a summary judgment. Kover 
v. Hufsmith, Wyo., 
496 P.2d 908 (1972).

 
 

[¶4.]     For a better 
understanding of this case, the material parts of the affidavit filed by the 
movant herein are set out as follows:

 
 
"JAMES ANDERSON, being 
first duly sowrn [sic], deposes and states that:

 
 
"1. He was the president 
of A-Pac, Ltd., plaintiff in this action at all times material and relevant 
thereto.

 
 
"2. The lease attached 
hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the lease arrangement entered 
into between Plaintiff and Defendants September 2, 1981.

 
 
"3. Defendants vacated 
the premises and breached the lease agreement with an excess of a year remaining 
on their obligation.

 
 
"4. Defendants have 
failed to make payment on the balance of the lease 
obligation.

 
 
"Deponent states nothing 
further.

 
 
"DATED this 14th day of 
January, 1985.

 
 
"/s/ James Anderson 

JAMES 
ANDERSON"

 
 
The motion recites that 
reliance will be made upon the affidavit and the pleadings. The only admissions 
which the pleadings make and which can be attributed to them are admissions of 
the appellee's corporate status and the execution of the 
lease.

 
 

[¶5.]     A movant must first 
submit evidence which establishes a prima facie case, Gennings v. First National Bank at 
Thermopolis, Wyo., 654 P.2d 154 (1982), and show that it is "entitled 
to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P. Appellee herein has 
clearly failed to do this in several 
particulars.

 
 

[¶6.]     Relying solely upon the 
record, the affidavit, and pleadings herein, neither this Court nor any court 
could make a determination of the exact amount of rental due when it has in its 
knowledge only the facts that there is "an excess of a year remaining on their 
obligation," and that appellants "have failed to make payment on the balance of 
the lease obligation." The same must also be said with reference to any penalty 
figure. Without referring to other evidence than that which appears in the file, 
no court could make these determinations in exact figures. The appellee has 
utterly failed to extablish any amount which might be due 
it.

 
 

[¶7.]     Although the record is 
entirely barren of any mention of what might be a reasonable attorney's fee, in 
reliance upon a paragraph of the lease (¶ 22) judgment was entered in the amount 
above mentioned for attorney's fees. The paragraph provides for reasonable 
attorney's fees. This portion of the judgment, of course, is without support in 
the record, which is silent as to what might be "reasonable" fees. Greenough v. Prairie Dog Ranch, Inc., 
Wyo., 531 P.2d 499 (1975), has heretofore held that there must be some evidentiary showing in 
order to make a determination of reasonable attorney's fees. This Court has very 
lately made it clear in the case of Hickey v. Burnett that a summary judgment 
may only be entered upon that evidence which is in the record and properly 
before the Court.

 
 

[¶8.]     Since it is highly 
improbable that the other questions which were raised by the appellants could 
again arise or that the rulings at which they were directed would recur, there 
is no reason for discussion of them.

 
 

[¶9.]     Reversed and remanded 
with instructions to vacate the judgment and proceed with this case.