Title: ORCUTT v. SHOBER INVESTMENTS, INC.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ORCUTT v. SHOBER INVESTMENTS, INC.2003 WY 6069 P.3d 386Case Number: 02-133Decided: 05/19/2003
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2003

                                                                                                            

CHARLES 
R. ORCUTT and

MARY L. ORCUTT,

 
 
 

Appellants(Defendants/Third 
Party Plaintiffs),

 

v.

 

SHOBER 
INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a

SHOBER BUILDERS,

 
 

Appellee(Plaintiff),

 

and

                                                                                                

MICKEY 
SHOBER, individually,

MIKE 
SHOBER, individually, and

LINDA SHOBER, individually,

 
 
 

Appellees(Third 
Party Defendants).

 

Representing 
Appellants:

            
Russell A. Hansen, Gillette, Wyoming  

 

Representing 
Appellees:

Patrick 
J. Murphy and Jason A. Neville of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, Casper, 
Wyoming  

 

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

 
 
        

            
KITE, Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      Shober 
Investments, Inc., d/b/a Shober Builders, filed a contract claim in district 
court against Charles R. and Mary L. Orcutt alleging a balance due of $18,610 
for concrete work performed on the Orcutts' home.  The Orcutts answered, counterclaimed, 
and filed a third-party complaint against Mickey, Mike, and Linda Shober.  Shober Builders and the individual 
Shobers filed a motion for summary judgment when the Orcutts failed to timely 
respond to requests for admissions and other discovery demands.  The district court granted the motion 
for summary judgment concluding the requested admissions, which were not timely 
answered, were deemed admitted.  We affirm and award 
sanctions.

 
 
    

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The Orcutts pose two 
issues which we rephrase as follows:

 
   
      

I.  If 
the court issues a scheduling order which establishes a deadline for completion 
of discovery, does the order take precedence over the deadline for answering 
requests for admissions established in the Wyoming Rules of Civil 
Procedure?   

II.  If third-party defendants have requested 
admissions from other defendants and the response is not timely, may the 
plaintiff rely on the admissions?

 
 
          
          

FACTS

 

[¶3]      In the summer of 
2000, the Orcutts hired Shober Builders under an oral contract to perform 
concrete work on a home in Campbell County.  The work was completed in September 
2000, and Shober Builders invoiced the Orcutts for $50,845.  They paid $32,235 leaving an unpaid 
balance of $18,610.  In October of 
2000, Shober Builders provided the Orcutts with a "Notice of Intention to File 
Lien" pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-107 (LexisNexis 2001)1 and subsequently recorded a lien on 
the property.  In April of 2001, 
Shober Builders filed a complaint for a lien foreclosure and a money judgment 
against the Orcutts to which the Orcutts timely filed their "Answer, 
Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint."  
The Orcutts' counterclaim against Shober Builders and third-party 
complaint against Mickey, Mike, and Linda Shober, individually, alleged breach 
of contract, construction negligence, intentional disregard of professional 
responsibility, and damages of $286,400.  
The counterclaim 
triggered a duty to defend under a Shober Investments, Inc. insurance policy and 
occasioned the entry of appearance by counsel to defend Shober 
Builders.

 
           
            
  

[¶4]      The district 
court apparently entered a scheduling order in August of 2001, establishing 
relevant discovery deadlines and a discovery cutoff date.  However, the content of this order cannot be 
confirmed because it appears from this Court's docket file that the order was 
not designated as part of the record on appeal and, consequently, not included 
in the certified record from the district court.

 
      
             
              
        

[¶5]      On or about 
August 22, 2001, Shober Builders and the third-party defendants submitted a 
request for admissions to the Orcutts pursuant to W.R.C.P. 36, which requires a 
response within thirty days or the matters are deemed admitted.  A second set of interrogatories and 
request for admissions were similarly served on the Orcutts on or about October 
19, 2001.  The Orcutts' responses to 
the first admissions request were not served on opposing counsel until November 
27, 2001, and their responses to the second admissions request were not served 
until December 19, 2001.  The Orcutts do not deny the responses exceeded the thirty-day deadline 
established by the rule.

 
 
           
  

[¶6]      On or about 
November 27, 2001, Shober Builders and the third-party defendants filed a motion 
for summary judgment against the Orcutts relying upon the admissions to 
establish that no dispute of material fact existed and the admitted facts 
entitled them to judgment.  After a 
December 17, 2001, hearing, the district court issued its order finding the 
Orcutts failed to timely respond to the two requests for admissions and the 
factual matters set out in those requests were, therefore, deemed admitted.  Further, the court held those admitted 
facts entitled Shober Builders and the third-party defendants to summary 
judgment.2  The Orcutts appeal 
from this order.

 
     

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
 

[¶7]      The sole issue 
raised in this appeal from the summary judgment is the district court's 
interpretation of W.R.C.P. 36 and its own pretrial scheduling order.  The Orcutts do not argue their 
admissions would not provide sufficient grounds for summary judgment.3  Instead, they maintain a proper reading of 
W.R.C.P. 36 and the pretrial scheduling order requires this Court to find their 
responses to the requests for admissions were timely served.

 
      
             
          

[¶8]      When we review a 
summary judgment, we have before us the same materials as did the district 
court, and we follow the same standards which applied to the proceedings 
below.  The propriety of granting a 
motion for summary judgment depends upon the correctness of the district court's 
dual findings that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the 
prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Reed v. Miles Land and Livestock 
Co., 2001 WY 16, ¶9, 18 P.3d 1161, ¶9 (Wyo. 2001); Mercado v. 
Trujillo, 980 P.2d 824, 825 (Wyo. 1999).  Because the issues are by nature 
questions of law, this Court gives no special deference to the determinations 
made by the district court.  
Aztec Gas & Oil Corporation v. Roemer Oil Company, 948 P.2d 902, 903 (Wyo. 1997); Pecha v. Smith, Keller & Associates, 942 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1997) ("A question of law is reviewed de novo by this 
Court as an exercise of its plenary authority, and no deference is given to the 
determination by the trial court"); Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d 959, 961 
(Wyo. 1996) (our review is de novo, limited to questions of law); JBC 
of Wyoming Corp. v. City of Cheyenne, 843 P.2d 1190, 1194 (Wyo. 1992) (we 
owe no deference to the district court's determination of questions of law); 
Griffin v. Bethesda Foundation, 609 P.2d 459, 461 (Wyo. 
1980).

 
   

DISCUSSION

 

[¶9]      The Orcutts do 
not refute that, "[p]ursuant to W.R.C.P. 36, admissions not denied within thirty 
days are deemed admitted."  TZ 
Land & Cattle Co. v. Condict, 795 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Wyo. 1990).  They are correct that the plain language 
of W.R.C.P. 364 affords the district court the 
discretion to increase or decrease the thirty-day time frame for a party to 
respond to requests for admissions.  
However, we cannot determine whether the district court exercised this 
authority because the Orcutts did not ensure that the order upon which they rely 
was included in the record on appeal.  
Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.05(b), the Orcutts were required to file a 
designation "of all parts of the record . . . to which appellant 
intends to direct the particular attention of the appellate court in its brief" 
with the clerk of the trial court.5  The Orcutts failed to file a 
designation.  The record was 
certified by the clerk of court on the basis of Shober Builders' record 
designation.  A copy of Shober 
Builders' designation, though not in the record, is directly referenced in a 
letter from the clerk of court and apparently did not include the scheduling 
order.  Further, there are no 
transcripts of the scheduling or summary judgment hearings or settlements of 
these proceedings as required by W.R.A.P. 3.03.6  As the appellants, the Orcutts had the 
burden of providing this Court with a complete record on which to base a 
decision.  Parsons v. 
Parsons, 2001 WY 62, ¶11, 27 P.3d 270, ¶11 (Wyo. 2001); G.C.I., 
Inc. v. Haught, 
7 P.3d 906, 911 (Wyo. 2000).

 

[¶10]   The only indication in the record 
with regard to the scope of the scheduling order is the inference which can be 
drawn from the district court's decision rejecting the Orcutts' contention.  Having no other means to review the 
district court's decision, we must assume the decision was in accord with the 
law.  Conner v. Board of County Commissioners, 
Natrona County, 2002 WY 148, 
¶20, 54 P.3d 1274, ¶20 (Wyo. 2002); Cottonwood Valley Ranch, Inc. v. 
Roberts, 874 P.2d 897, 899 (Wyo. 1994).  In addition to a record devoid of the 
order upon which the appeal is founded, the Orcutts' legal argument presents 
only a bare assertion without evidentiary or legal support; consequently, 
reversal of the summary judgment is not warranted.  Id.

 

[¶11]   The Orcutts' failure to designate 
the record on appeal constitutes a clear failure to comply with the Wyoming 
Rules of Appellate Procedure which is a separate ground 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.'  W.R.A.P. 1.03."  Basolo v. Gose, 994 P.2d 968, 969 (Wyo. 
2000).

 
  
  

[¶12]   The Orcutts also maintain their 
admissions can be relied upon by only the individual party who propounded the 
requests.  This issue is also 
presented without cogent argument or relevant legal authority.  Authority is provided that the 
admissions of one party cannot be inferred to be the admissions of another 
party.  However, this concept has no 
bearing on the instant case.  The 
Orcutts' admissions were not attributed to another party.  Rather, consistent with the language of 
W.R.C.P. 36, another defendant relied upon the Orcutts' admissions for purposes 
of a summary judgment motion.  This is consistent 
with the wording of the rule:

 
 
       

            
(b)  Effect of Admission.  
Any matter admitted under this rule is 
conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or 
amendment of the admission. . . . Any admission made by a 
party under this rule is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not 
an admission for any other purpose nor may it be used against the party in any 
other proceeding.

 
          
          
        
                
              

W.R.C.P. 
36(b).  We conclude the admissions were properly 
utilized in this case.

 
    
     

C.        
Sanctions

 

[¶13]   Shober Builders requests sanctions 
against the Orcutts claiming they had no reasonable basis on which to appeal 
from the district court's entry of judgment and failed to support their 
contentions with cogent argument and pertinent legal authority.  Though we are generally reluctant to do 
so, we conclude such an award is warranted in this matter because the Orcutts 
blatantly disregarded the rules which require the appellants to designate an 
adequate record on appeal and failed to provide cogent argument and pertinent 
legal authority to support their contentions.  Ahearn v. Hollon, 2002 WY 125, 
¶29, 53 P.3d 87, ¶29 (Wyo. 2002); Gray v. Stratton Real Estate, 
2001 WY 125, ¶11, 36 P.3d 1127, ¶11 (Wyo. 2001); Small v. Convenience Plus 
Partners, Ltd., 6 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Wyo. 2000).  Shober Builders is directed to submit a 
statement of costs and attorney fees incurred in responding to this appeal.  W.R.A.P. 10.06.  Upon review, we 
will award an appropriate amount in the form of sanctions.

 
      
      

[¶14]   Affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1"Before filing a 
lien pursuant to this chapter every person shall give ten (10) days notice to 
the owner or his agent in writing of any claim against a building or an 
improvement or for materials furnished stating the amount of any claim and from 
whom it is due."  Section 
29-2-107.

2

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 
THAT:

            
1.  Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintiff and against 
the Defendants Charles R. Orcutt and Mary L. Orcutt for the sum of $18,610, 
together with pre-judgment interest in the sum of $1,845 (interest at 7% per 
annum from the Invoice date of September 14, 2000, to February 22, 2002, 17 
months), and the court costs in the sum of $83 (lien recording fee of $8, filing 
fee of $75), for a total judgment of $20,538, together with post-judgment 
interest;

            
2.  Judgment is further entered against the Defendants on the 
Plaintiff's statutory lien, and the Sheriff of Campbell County is authorized and 
directed to make sale of the property described in the Notice of Lien at public 
sale in the manner provided by law, with the first proceeds being used to pay 
costs of sale;

            
3.  Proceeds of sale after payment of costs of sale and payment 
of the Plaintiff's judgment shall be paid to the Clerk of District Court for 
distribution by court order;

            
4.  Judgment is further entered declaring that the lien of the 
Plaintiff is superior to the claim of anyone acquiring an interest in the 
property after this suit was filed on April 25, 
2001;

            
5.  Judgment is further entered against the Defendants on their 
Counterclaim, which is hereby dismissed with 
prejudice;

            
6.  Judgment is further entered against the Defendants on their 
Third Party Complaint, which is hereby dismissed with 
prejudice.

  3The first 
request for admissions, not answered and deemed admitted, included:  "15.  Please admit that the 
reason you did not pay Shober Investments, Inc. d/b/a Shober Builders in full 
for their work was because you were over the construction budget of your home 
and did not have the money."  The 
second request for admissions, likewise not answered and deemed admitted, 
included:

            
5.  Please admit that the damages claimed in your counterclaim 
were not proximately caused by any actions of Shober 
Builders.

            
6.  Please admit that Shober Builders performed all their work 
in a workmanlike and satisfactory manner.

            
7.  Please admit that Shober Builders was not negligent in any 
manner with respect to their work on your home.

            
8.  Please admit that through your actions as the general 
contractor you caused all the damage to your home complained of in your 
Counterclaim.

            
9.  Please admit that you owe Shober Builders the full amount 
alleged in their Complaint.

            

  4W.R.C.P. 36 provides in pertinent 
part:

Each 
matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth.  The matter is admitted unless, within 30 
days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the 
court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party 
requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, 
signed by the party or by the party's attorney, but, unless the court shortens 
the time, a defendant shall not be required to serve answers or objections 
before the expiration of 45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon 
that defendant.

  5W.R.A.P. 3.05 
provides in pertinent part:

(b) Appellant shall, contemporaneously with the filing of its brief in 
the appellate court and service of that brief upon appellee, serve on appellee, 
file with the clerk of the trial court a designation for transmission to the 
appellate court of all parts of the record, without unnecessary duplication, to 
which appellant intends to direct the particular attention of the appellate 
court in its brief.

            
(c) If appellee desires to designate parts of the record for transmission 
not designated by appellant, appellee shall, contemporaneously with the filing 
of appellee's brief in the appellate court and service of that brief upon 
appellant, file with the clerk of the trial court and serve upon appellant a 
designation of those parts of the record desired by appellee.  If appellee does not wish to designate 
additional portions of the trial court record, then such a certification shall 
be made to the clerk of the trial court.

            

  6W.R.A.P. 3.03 
provides:

If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was 
made, or if a transcript is unavailable, appellant may prepare a statement of 
the evidence or proceedings from the best available means including appellant's 
recollection.  The statement shall 
be served on appellee, who may serve objections or propose amendments within 15 
days after service.  The statement 
and any objections or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the trial court 
for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the 
clerk of the trial court in the record on appeal.