Title: Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DAREN S. BERG and JENNIFER A. BERG2012 WY 42Case Number: S-11-0229Decided: 03/20/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.  
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
 
DAREN 
S. BERG and JENNIFER A. 
BERG,Appellants(Defendants),v.TORRINGTON LIVESTOCK 
CATTLE COMPANY, a Wyoming 
Corporation,Appellee(Plaintiff)
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Goshen County
The 
Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellants:
Daren 
S. Berg and Jennifer A. Berg, Pro se, 
Edgemont, SD.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Patrick 
J. Crank of Nicholas & Crank, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
 
HILL, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      Daren S. Berg and 
Jennifer A. Berg (the Bergs) filed this pro se appeal from summary judgment 
entered against them in an action to collect on a promissory note.  Due to deficiencies in the filed appeal, 
we summarily affirm.
 
ISSUES
 
[¶2]      Ten arguments are 
listed by the Bergs:
 
1.            
The 
district court erred in denying Bergs their preserved right to a jury 
trial.
2.            
The 
district court erred in holding that there was no breech [sic] of contract 
against Torrington Livestock Cattle Company.
3.            
The 
district court erred in holding secured collateral on a promissary [sic] note 
did not have to be apllied [sic] to the actual note.
4.            
The 
district court failed on all counts to prove or provide any evidence of the 
Bergs hindering or delaying Torrington Livestock Cattle 
Company.
5.            
The 
district court erred in allowing perjured statements.
6.            
The 
district court continiuosly [sic] proved they were biased against the Bergs and 
denied them of their Constitutional and Civil rights.
7.            
Does 
the district court have the authority to dictate where a business or individuals 
may conduct business or financial transactions?
8.            
The 
district court erred in its ruling on the bank security 
agreement.
9.            
Torrington 
Livestock Cattle Company has received $103,151.71 in payment on a bank note that 
only had a balance of $53,569.60.  
This was low value auction prices.
10.         
Gross 
negligence on behalf of the Goshen County Sheriff’s department should be filed 
for the seizure and then losing Bergs’ property.  The department failed to provide 
accurate records and secure the property until it was 
sold.
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      This is the 
second of two related lawsuits filed by Torrington Livestock Cattle Company 
(TLCC).  TLCC first filed suit 
against Mr. Berg and 4-B Livestock, owned by Daren and Jennifer Berg, in 
February of 2008.  As the suit 
progressed, writs of garnishment and attachment were issued (and some property 
was sold), with Berg to receive credit against any judgment.  A jury trial was held in December of 
2010, in which Mr. Berg was found liable for breach of contract, conversion, and 
fraud.  In January of 2011 the court 
entered judgment in favor of TLCC in the amount of $517,635.86, and in February 
of 2011 the court ordered Mr. Berg’s previously seized property sold to satisfy 
the judgment.  Funds held by the 
clerk of court were released to TLCC but the judgment remains unsatisfied.  Mr. Berg appealed the judgment but his 
appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
 
[¶4]      In February of 
2010, while the first suit was pending, the Bergs signed a promissory note with 
the First Bank of Torrington.  The 
Bergs promised to repay the principal sum of $53,569.60, at 8.25% interest, by 
four annual installments of $15,872.30.  As collateral, the bank acquired security 
interests in a variety of the Bergs’ property, including livestock and ranching 
equipment.  In June of 2010 the bank 
assigned the promissory note to TLCC.
 
[¶5]      The first payment 
on the note was due on October 1, 2010, and in late September of 2010 the Bergs 
shipped cattle for auction, with the proceeds intended for the first 
payment.  However, the proceeds 
check was encumbered by TLCC because it held the promissory note.  Around that same time, writs for seizure 
of cattle and equipment were issued and the Bergs did not make the first 
payment.
 
[¶6]      This action began 
on October 18, 2010 when TLCC filed its Complaint for Breach of Contract for 
Promissory Note and to Enforce Security Agreement.  The Bergs claimed that the assignment of 
the note was fraudulent, and Mrs. Berg argued that her property interest was 
separate from that of her husband and thus not subject to seizure to satisfy the 
judgment.  The Bergs claimed TLCC 
hindered them from making payment on the note and that TLCC should not be 
permitted to seize collateral secured by the note and also collect on the 
note.
 
[¶7]      The court 
rejected the Bergs’ argument, and ruled the assignment was valid even without 
their consent.  Furthermore, the 
court ruled that Mrs. Berg had forfeited her separate estate protections by her 
voluntary fraudulent conduct – thus, her alleged “separate” property was subject 
to Mr. Berg’s liabilities in the earlier case.  The court also ruled that TLCC properly 
applied the proceeds from the sale of collateral secured by the promissory note 
to satisfy the judgment from the earlier case and that TLCC’s seizure of the 
collateral did not provide the Bergs with an affirmative defense.  Finally, the court ruled that no 
material issues of fact existed and TLCC was entitled to summary judgment. This 
appeal followed.
 
DISCUSSION
[¶8]      Though ten issues 
are listed by the Bergs, the issues are best captured by TLCC: (1) Should the 
Court summarily affirm the trial court’s decisions based on the Bergs’ willful 
and total disregard to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure? (2) Did the 
trial court properly grant summary judgment to TLCC? (3) Did the trial court 
correctly deny the Bergs’ jury trial demand? (4) Should other issues raised by 
the Bergs be disregarded because they are not supported with cogent argument or 
pertinent authority?
 
[¶9]      As mentioned, 
TLCC raises a preliminary issue relating to the Bergs’ failure to comply with 
the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and requests that we exercise our 
discretion pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03 and summarily affirm the trial court’s 
decision.
 
[¶10]   The decision whether to dismiss an 
appeal or summarily affirm a decision of the lower court based on the filing of 
a deficient brief pursuant to        W.R.A.P. 
1.03 is within the discretion of the appellate court.  McElreath v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div., 
901 P.2d 1103, 1006 (Wyo. 
1995).  Rule 1.03 
provides:
 
The 
timely filing of a notice of appeal, which complies with Rule 2.07(a), is 
jurisdictional.  The failure to 
comply with any other rule of appellate procedure, or any order of court, does 
not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the 
appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited to: refusal to 
consider the offending party’s contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and 
affirmance.
 
[¶11]   We exercised our discretion in Finch v. Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24, ¶ 2, 130 P.3d 437, 437-38 (Wyo. 2006), 
where we noted:
 
Finch’s 
Notice of Appeal does not comply with the requirements of [W.R.A.P.] 2.07. 
Finch’s Notice of Appeal misnames the Wyoming Supreme Court as the Court of 
Appeals for the State of Wyoming.  
The Notice of Appeal does not contain all pleadings that assert a claim 
for relief in the appendix as required by the rule.
Finch’s 
brief does not comply with the requirements of [W.R.A.P.] 7.01 as 
follows:
1.  The 
title page does not identify the party filing the brief as required by 
[W.R.A.P.] 7.01(a)(2). 
2.  The 
title page does not identify the name, address, and telephone number of the 
attorney or pro se party preparing the brief as required by [W.R.A.P.] 
7.01(a)(3);
3.  A 
table of contents, with page references is not present as required by [W.R.A.P.] 
7.01(b).
4.  A 
table of cases alphabetically arranged (in one list or by jurisdiction), 
statutes and other authorities cited, with reference to pages where they appear 
is not present as required by [W.R.A.P.] 7.01(c).
5.  A 
statement of the issues presented for review is not present as required by 
[W.R.A.P.] 7.01(d).
6.  A 
statement of the case including the nature of the case, the course of 
proceedings, and the disposition in the trial court is not present as required 
by [W.R.A.P.] 7.01(e)(2).
7.  A 
statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review with 
appropriate references to documents listed in the index of the transmitted 
record is not present as required by [W.R.A.P.] 
7.01(f)(1).
8.  The 
argument is not cogent and does not contain proper citations to authority, 
statutes and parts of the record relied on as required by [W.R.A.P.] 
7.01(f)(1).
9.  The 
argument does not set forth a concise statement of the applicable standard of 
review for each issue as required by [W.R.A.P.] 7.01(j).
10.  No 
appendix is attached containing a copy of the judgment or final order appealed 
from as required by [W.R.A.P.] 7.01(j).
11.  No 
appendix is attached containing the statement of costs required by [W.R.A.P.] 
10.01 as required by [W.R.A.P.] 7.01(j).
 
We 
concluded in Finch by agreeing with 
the appellee and summarily affirming the appeal in accordance with W.R.A.P. 
1.03.  Id.
 
[¶12]   Like Finch, the Bergs’ brief in this case is 
deficient in a number of ways.  As 
noted by TLCC, the brief almost completely fails to comply with W.R.A.P 
7.01:  It does not provide page 
references in the table of contents; it does not list a table of cases used in 
support of its argument; it does not provide a statement of the case; it does 
not provide a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review 
with appropriate references to documents listed in the index of the transmitted 
record; it fails to provide argument with citations to authorities, statutes and 
parts of the record relied upon; it does not provide a concise statement of the 
standard of review; and it fails to contain a conclusion stating the precise 
relief sought.  See W.R.A.P. 7.01(b)-(e)(2), (f)(1)(2), 
and (g).  Also, the Bergs failed to 
comply with W.R.A.P. 3.05 in that, contemporaneous to filing their brief, they 
did not serve TLCC with a copy of it nor did they file with the clerk of the 
trial court a designation of the record to which the Bergs intended to direct 
the particular attention of the appellate court in their 
brief.
 
[¶13]   Not only is it critical to follow 
the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is of equal importance to present 
this Court with cogent argument and citation to legal authority.  Forbis v. Forbis, 2009 WY 41, ¶ 10, 203 P.3d 421, 424 (Wyo. 2009) (“We have consistently refused to consider claims not supported 
by cogent argument or citation 
to pertinent legal 
authority.”).  Here, the Bergs fail 
to do just that.
 
[¶14]   We have often stated that we expect 
pro se litigants to “handle this 
professional, technical work in compliance with Wyoming rules of appellate 
procedure in the same way that trained lawyers are expected to perform” but 
“[t]his court has spoken to a certain leniency which should be afforded the pro 
se litigant.”  Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo. 1995).  However, blatant disregard of our rules 
of procedure cannot and will not be condoned.  When a brief fails to present a valid 
contention supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority, “we consistently 
have refused to consider such cases, whether the brief is by a litigant pro se or is filed by counsel.”  Id.
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶15]   Based upon the deficient brief 
offered by the Bergs and their failure to follow the rules of appellate 
procedure, the decision of the trial court is summarily 
affirmed.
 
the 
trial court is summarily affirmed.