Title: HAWORTH v. ROYAL et al.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

HAWORTH v. ROYAL et al.2003 WY 2663 P.3d 912Case Number: 02-145Decided: 02/27/2003
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

MARJORIE 
LOUISE HAWORTH, individually,

and 
ALBERT RAYMOND COPP, JR., individually,

 

Appellants(Plaintiffs),

 

v.

                                                                                                

RANDY 
L. ROYAL, Individually and as Trustee of

the 
Bankruptcy Estate of Marjorie Louise Haworth;

ANTHONY 
T. WENDTLAND, individually and as

attorney 
for Randy L. Royal; BETTY ALDEN,

individually 
and as agent for ERA CARROLL

REALTY 
CO., INC.; SHERIDAN COUNTY TITLE

INSURANCE 
COMPANY; KEITH E. WEERTS and

KIM 
L. WEERTS, individually and as Husband and

Wife; 
JAMES A KING dba KING LOCKSMITH

AND 
ELECTRONICS, INC.; DICK KUZARA dba

MAC'S 
MOVING AND SECURED STORAGE,

 

Appellees(Defendants).

 

 

Representing 
Appellants:

 

            
Marjorie Louise Haworth, pro se; and Albert Raymond Copp, Jr., pro 
se.

 

Representing 
Appellees:

 

            
Anthony T. Wendtland of Davis & Cannon, Sheridan, 
Wyoming.

 

 

 

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

 

 

            
VOIGT, Justice.

 

[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from the district court's grant of the appellees' motion for summary judgment 
and denial of the appellants' motion for summary judgment.  We summarily affirm the district court 
because the appellants have failed to provide cogent argument or citation to 
pertinent authority.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The appellants 
present no clear statement of the issues.  
Instead, they present a rambling four-page diatribe in which they 
haphazardly mention jurisdiction, procedural rules, statutory authority, 
conspiracy, due process, equal protection, fraud, real party in interest, and 
open courts.  In their brief, the 
appellees correctly point this Court to the appropriate issue of whether summary 
judgment was proper.  The appellees 
also seek costs and attorney's fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶3]      Appellant Haworth 
took bankruptcy.  Appellant Copp 
apparently was in possession of and claimed an interest in certain property of 
the bankruptcy estate.  Appellee 
Royal is the bankruptcy trustee and Appellee Wendtland is his attorney.  The remaining appellees are third 
parties drawn into the controversy as a result of the trustee's efforts to gain 
possession of and sell estate assets.

 

[¶4]      The appellants 
filed a lawsuit against the appellees, vaguely alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, 
and abuse of process.  Summary 
judgment was granted to the appellees and against the appellants.  This appeal followed.  Unfortunately, the appellants present no 
cogent argument or pertinent legal authority, so we summarily affirm.  VJL v. RED, 2002 WY 25, ¶¶ 20-22, 
39 P.3d 1110, 1114 (Wyo. 2002).  Pro se litigants are not excused 
from the requirements of this rule.  
In re KD, 2001 WY 61, ¶¶ 7-9, 26 P.3d 1035, 1036-37 (Wyo. 
2001); 
Rogers v. Rogers, 973 P.2d 1118, 1120 (Wyo. 1999).

 

[¶5]      Pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 10.05, we certify that there was no reasonable cause for this 
appeal.  We can discern no good 
faith legal basis for the appeal, and we grant the appellees' request for 
sanctions.  Gray v. Stratton Real 
Estate, 2001 WY 125, ¶¶ 11-13, 36 P.3d 1127, 1129-30 (Wyo. 2001).  The appellees should submit a statement 
of costs and attorney's fees associated with this appeal.

 

[¶6]      
Affirmed.