Title: Baker v. Reed

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Baker v. Reed1998 WY 118965 P.2d 1153Case Number: 97-274Decided: 09/23/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
  

Byron 
BAKER and Rose Baker, Appellants (Defendants),

v.

Robert REED and Joan Reed, Appellees 
(Plaintiffs).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Lincoln County, John 
D. Troughton, J.

 

Byron Baker and Rose Baker, 
pro se.

Dennis L. Sanderson, Afton, 
for Appellees(Plaintiffs).

 

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

 * Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference.

 

TAYLOR, Justice.

 [¶1] Appellants seek reversal of the district court's 
order enforcing a $30,500.00 promissory note in favor of the Joan Reed Trust and 
ordering appellants to pay an additional $24,320.76. Appellants, appearing 
before this court pro se, have failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01. Therefore, 
we summarily affirm the district court's order and grant appellees' request for 
sanctions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.

 

                                             
I. ISSUES

 

[¶2] We decline to address 
the eleven issues set out by appellants. It is apparent that appellants' only 
real complaint is that the district judge found in favor of appellees. The issue 
we will consider is whether sanctions are appropriate due to appellants' failure 
to present cogent argument and pertinent authority in their brief, as well as 
their failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01.

 

                       
                      II. 
FACTS

 

[¶3] In 1990, appellants, 
Byron and Rose Baker (the Bakers), and appellees, Robert and Joan Reed (the 
Reeds), entered into a business arrangement to purchase a building in Alpine, 
Wyoming, convert it into rental units, and share the income. The Reeds were to 
make the down payment and pay the closing costs. The Bakers were to perform the 
actual labor needed to remodel the building and rent the units. The Reeds also 
agreed to front the cost of building materials and other expenses until the 
business was solvent and self-supporting. The agreement contemplated that the 
Reeds would be reimbursed for these expenses.

 

[¶4] A corporation was 
formed, the building purchased, and work began. Due to inadvertence, the real 
property was never deeded to the corporation, but remained in the names of the 
individual incorporators: Robert and Joan Reed and Byron and Rose Baker, until 
the time of trial. Things quickly turned sour. Both of the major tenants at the 
time of purchase left the building requiring remodeling for other tenants. 
Remodeling proceeded at great expense for a chiropractor who never actually 
occupied the space, having failed to obtain his Wyoming license. The space was 
again remodeled into an apartment. These and other problems obligated the Reeds 
to advance $38,462.00 over and above 
their initial investment at the time of purchase. Mr. Baker was also obliged to 
spend more time in remodeling the building than he originally anticipated. As a 
result of the ongoing expenses, the Reeds contributed an additional $8,000.00 of 
capital to the corporation and began assisting Mr. Baker with the 
remodeling.

 

[¶5] Although progress was 
slow, eventually one unit remained to be completed, along with a few minor 
finishing projects and some outdoor construction. In the summer of 1993, the 
parties agreed that the Bakers would move into the remaining unfinished unit and 
would live there rent free for one year. In exchange, the Bakers would complete 
the remodeling project and handle the rental of the other units. However, after 
several months without progress, the Reeds demanded that the Bakers begin paying 
rent. The Bakers did pay rent on their unit for several months, then ceased 
paying due to the difficulties between the parties. At the time of trial, the 
Bakers had lived in the unit rent free for almost three 
years.

 

[¶6] The Bakers contend that 
the promissory note to the Joan Reed Trust was invalid because it was signed 
under duress and because the corporation had no assets with which to pay the 
note at the time it was signed, the building never having been deeded to the 
corporation. The Bakers also contend that Mr. Baker's "sweat equity" 
contribution should offset the amount of the promissory note. All parties agreed 
that each of the four original incorporators owned a twenty-five percent share 
in the business.

 

[¶7] The district court 
found that the promissory note was a valid obligation of the corporation, and 
ordered the Bakers to pay twenty-four months back rent on their apartment, minus 
the amount already paid. The district court also found that the Bakers had 
misappropriated assets belonging to the corporation and ordered the Bakers to 
reimburse the corporation for those misappropriations. Finally, the district 
court quieted title to the real property in the 
corporation.

 

                                      
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶8] 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).

 

                                          
IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶9] The Bakers' brief is 
replete with facts that do not appear in the record. The Bakers' brief also 
appended several exhibits that were not presented before the district court. The 
exhibits were concerned, for the most part, with events that have taken place 
since the conclusion of trial. Their "Statement of the Case" eschews information 
in favor of argumentation and cites primarily "facts" that are not of record. 
The Bakers' "Argument" is devoid of cogent argument or pertinent 
authority.

 

[¶10] We are generally 
reluctant to impose sanctions and will do so "only in those rare circumstances 
where an appeal lacks cogent argument, where there is an absence of pertinent 
authority to support the claims of error, and/or when there is a failure to 
adequately cite to the record." Amen, Inc. v. Barnard, 938 P.2d 855, 858 (Wyo. 
1997). The Bakers have failed to comply with any of these standards. 
Accordingly, we certify there was no just cause for this appeal, and award 
penalties pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.

 

                                         
 V. 
CONCLUSION

 

[¶11] The judgment of the 
district court is summarily affirmed. The Reeds shall submit a statement of 
costs and attorney fees to this court. Upon review, an appropriate award of 
costs and fees will be ordered.