Title: KELLEY v. WATSON

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KELLEY v. WATSON2003 WY 12777 P.3d 691Case Number: 02-271Decided: 10/06/2003
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2003

 

                                                                                                
      

 

THOMAS 
LEE KELLEY and

VICKI 
KELLEY, d/b/a Outlaw Recovery,

 

Appellants(Plaintiffs),

 

v.

 

MALCOLM 
G. WATSON,

 

Appellee(Defendant).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County

The 
Honorable Robert B. Denhardt, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Thomas Kelley and Vicki Kelley, Pro se, Rawlins, Wyoming 

 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
No appearance 

 

 

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

 

 

            
KITE, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Thomas Lee Kelley 
and Vicki Kelley d/b/a Outlaw Recovery, appeal pro se from a district court 
judgment which found the Kelleys' claims concerning ownership of two vehicles 
was without merit and awarded the property in dispute to Malcolm G. Watson.  We conclude that the Kelleys' brief is 
unsupported by the record, cogent argument, or citation to pertinent authority 
and summarily affirm the district court's order.

 

 

 

[¶2]      In the spring 
of 1998, the Kelleys and Mr. Watson purchased three tow trucks from Mr. Phil 
Perry.  The vehicles were financed 
through a bank loan in the amount of $21,000 and a promissory note to Mr. 
Perry.  Both the Kelleys and Mr. 
Watson were signatories on the loans.  
Shortly after the purchase, Mr. Watson obtained title for two of the 
trucks in his name only.  The third 
truck was sold around the same time and is no longer at issue.  The Kelleys allege that in January 2002, 
Mr. Watson trespassed on their property and took possession of one of the two 
tow trucks.  The Kelleys' complaint 
against Mr. Watson alleged fraud, trespass, wrongful possession, breach of peace 
and conversion.  The district court 
found in favor of Mr. Watson.  The 
court found that the Kelleys defaulted on payment of the loans, leaving Mr. 
Watson "holding the bag."  The court 
ordered the trucks to be sold to help repay the loans.  

 

[¶3]      The district 
court entered its judgment on October 1, 2002.  The Kelleys filed a motion for relief 
from judgment on October 29, 2002.  
On November 26, 2002, the district court held Mr. Kelley in contempt for 
failing to turn over one of the trucks and ordered execution on that truck.  The Kelleys filed their Notice of Appeal 
the same day, and this appeal followed.

 

 

 

[¶4]      We will summarily 
affirm cases or issues in cases that are not presented with cogent argument or 
pertinent authority.  While we may 
make allowances for pro se litigants, they are not excused from compliance with 
this rule and with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 
87 (Wyo. 1995).  The Kelleys' brief does not set forth any 
issues, and the Appellee did not file a brief.  "Under this court's long-standing 
precedent, this court will not frame the issues for the litigants and will not 
consider issues not raised by them and not supported by cogent argument and 
authoritative citation."  State 
v. Campbell County School District, 2001 WY 90, ¶35, 32 P.3d 325, ¶35 (Wyo. 
2001).  

 

 

 

[¶5]      In addition to 
failing to comply with various provisions of W.R.A.P 7.01, the Kelleys' brief is 
not supported by the record, cogent argument or pertinent authority.   Not only does the brief lack 
proper format, no issues are framed, nor are any cases cited.  Moreover, the brief fails to include any 
facts or information pertaining to the appeal at issue, the nature of the case 
on appeal, the course of proceedings, or the disposition in the trial 
court.  See W.R.A.P. 
7.01(e).  The Kelleys do not cite to 
the record.  They generally complain 
about their attorney and about the district court judge; basically, the Kelleys' 
brief simply voices discontent with the ruling against 
them.

 

[¶6]      Even if the 
Kelleys' brief had framed issues or cited pertinent authority, we would still be 
inclined to summarily affirm the district court's order because there is no 
hearing transcript, nor is there a statement of the evidence presented at the 
hearing.  In the absence of a 
transcript or an approved statement of the hearing as provided under W.R.A.P. 
3.03, "the regularity of the trial court's judgment and the competency of the 
evidence upon which that judgment is based must be presumed." Burt v. 
Burt, 2002 WY 127, ¶7, 53 P.3d 101, ¶7 (Wyo. 2002) (citations 
omitted).

 

[¶7]      
Affirmed.