Title: WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISON V. CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation and CLINT COOK, Individually; CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation V. WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISON

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISON V. CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation and CLINT COOK, Individually; CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation V. WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISON2008 WY 34179 P.3d 867Case Number: S-07-0132, S-07-0133, S-07-016Decided: 03/28/2008179
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
WAYNE 
GARRISON and PAMELA 
GARRISON,Appellants(Plaintiffs),v.CC BUILDERS, INC., 
a Wyoming 
corporation and CLINT COOK, 
Individually,Appellees(Defendants).

 
 
CC 
BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming 
corporation,Appellant(Defendant),v.WAYNE GARRISON 
and PAMELA GARRISON,Appellees(Plaintiffs).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofTetonCounty

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 
Case No. 
S-07-0132

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

Lawrence B. 
Hartnett of Law Offices of Lawrence B. Hartnett, 
Jackson, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Kenneth 
S. Cohen of Cohen Law Office, P.C., Jackson, 
Wyoming; and Heather Noble of Jackson, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Cohen.

 
 
Case 
Nos. S-07-0133 & S-07-0162

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

Kenneth 
S. Cohen of Cohen Law Office, P.C., Jackson, 
Wyoming; and Heather Noble of Jackson, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Cohen.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

Lawrence B. 
Hartnett of Law Offices of Lawrence B. Hartnett, 
Jackson, Wyoming.

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

 
 

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      CC Builders, Inc. 
(CC Builders) built Wayne and Pamela 
Garrison (the Garrisons) a house in Teton County, Wyoming, on a "cost plus" basis.  This litigation resulted from the 
parties' subsequent disagreement as to the reasonable cost of construction.  Both parties have appealed from the 
district court's award of damages and costs to the Garrisons.  We affirm in part and reverse in 
part.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      The numerous 
convoluted issues presented by the parties in these three inter-related appeals 
can be restated as follows:

 
 
1.   Are the district court's findings 
of fact as to damages clearly erroneous?

 
 
2.   Are the district court's 
conclusions of law as to damages inconsistent with its findings of 
fact?

 
 
3.   Did the district court err in 
concluding that CC Builders had not committed fraud?

 
 
4.   Did the district court abuse its 
discretion in its award of costs to the Garrisons?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The Garrisons 
live in Teton County, 
Wyoming.  CC Builders is a Wyoming corporation engaged in the business of building 
custom residences in TetonCounty.  In 1994, the Garrisons hired CC 
Builders, on a "cost plus 10%" basis, to build them a home in the Bear Island 
Subdivision.  The 10% was designated 
for overhead and profit.  During 
this project, which lasted two years, the Garrisons became friends with Clint 
and Lisa Cook, the owners of CC Builders.

 
 
[¶4]      As had always 
been their intent, the Garrisons put the BearIsland home up for sale and began 
construction planning for a permanent home on a neighboring lot, known as the 
Hansen property.  CC Builders was 
hired to construct a small guest house and garage on that lot.  At some point, however, the Garrisons 
changed their minds and decided to have a house built for them at TetonVillage.  They sold the Hansen property and 
purchased a condominium unit at TetonVillage, which they hired CC Builders to 
remodel.

 
 
[¶5]      In 1999, the 
Garrisons bought a residential lot at TetonVillage and engaged a local architect, 
Larry Berlin, to design a house.  On 
March 24, 2000, the Garrisons met with Berlin and Clint Cook to consider construction 
of the house.  Although the parties 
discussed the possibility of a "square-footage" contract, no agreement was 
reached as to what the cost per square foot would be.  Instead, the parties entered into an 
oral "cost plus 12%" construction contract.

 
 
[¶6]      Excavation for 
the house's foundation began in late May of 2000.  Unstable soils were removed and large 
areas were backfilled.  Gravel was 
imported to replace other soils under the foundation, and the building site was 
raised three feet above the original plan.  
The house was "roughed-in" by March 2001.  Wayne Garrison and Clint Cook then met to discuss 
costs, which subject had not been broached since the project began, even though 
the Garrisons had, to that date, already paid $1,278,000.00 to CC Builders in 
response to monthly billings.  At 
that meeting, Cook presented a written estimate to complete the project, 
excluding landscape and "hardscape"1 costs, totaling $3,335,157.00.  Garrison authorized Cook to 
proceed.

 
 
[¶7]      CC Builders did 
continue with construction of the house.  
Construction did not strictly follow the architect's plans, however, as 
numerous changes and additions were made.  
Those changes and additions were so numerous that, after litigation began 
and the district court authorized an inspection of the residence, the changes 
and additions were compiled into what became known as the "List of 
520."

 
 
[¶8]      The Garrisons 
continued to pay CC Builders' monthly invoices through August 10, 2001the total 
at that point being $3,463,174.74.  The September 6, 2001 monthly invoice was 
for an additional $532,775.72.  The 
Garrisons paid all but $57,083.21 of that bill, the withheld sum representing 
profit and overhead.  They also 
withheld an additional $153,696.44, representing profit and overhead from the 
monthly billings for October through December 2001.

 
 
[¶9]      The Garrisons 
sued CC Builders on February 11, 2004, alleging counts of contract breach, 
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.2  Primarily, the Garrisons alleged that CC 
Builders had agreed to build the house within a year and at a cost of $350 per 
square foot, which amount was to include 6% for overhead and 6% for profit.  The Garrisons further alleged that CC 
Builders had failed to obtain competitive bids from subcontractors, had failed 
to build the house in a timely manner, had breached the covenant of good faith 
and fair dealing, had grossly overcharged for labor costs and use of equipment, 
had ordered and billed for materials not used on the project, had failed 
adequately to superintend the project, and had wrongfully charged overhead costs 
as direct costs.  These same 
allegations were then repeated as having been done knowingly and willfully, or 
negligently, to support fraud and negligent misrepresentation 
claims.

 
 
[¶10]   CC Builders answered and 
counterclaimed, seeking $215,696.44 for breach of contract, that sum 
representing CC Builders' calculation of the total amount still due under 
monthly invoices.  In its second 
cause of action, CC Builders sought the same amount under a quantum meruit theory.  Finally, CC Builders sought damages "in 
excess of $1,000,000.00" for defamation, alleging that the Garrisons had 
published false and defamatory statements, orally and in writing, concerning CC 
Builders' conduct during the construction project.

 
 
[¶11]   After a thirteen-day bench trial, 
the district court concluded that CC Builders had been overpaid by the Garrisons 
in the amount of $131,962.77.  The 
district court based that figure on expert testimony as to reasonable costs and 
industry practices in the area, as well as the parties' course of conduct.  The district court's mathematical 
computation was as follows:

 
 


Estimate

$3,335,157.00

Permits

23,713.00

Utilities

9,006.00

Additional 
      Masonry

171,163.00

Landscaping

244,409.00

 
 
$3,723,458.003

 
 
[¶12]   After concluding that this 
figure$3,723,458.00was the reasonable cost of the project, the district court 
noted that the Garrisons had been billed for $3,995,817.77an overpayment of 
$272,359.77.  The district court 
also found certain "bonus and incentive" charges in the amount of $123,592.00, 
to have been unreasonable, raising the overcharge to $395,951.77.  From that total, the district court then 
subtracted $153,000.00 that the Garrisons had withheld, and $110,989.00 for 
change costs attributable to the Garrisons, leaving the amount due to the 
Garrisons of $131,962.77.  Judgment 
was entered against CC Builders in that amount.

 
 
[¶13]   After trial, the Garrisons filed a 
Motion to Amend Judgment, citing W.R.C.P. 59(a)(5) and (6), which rule provides 
as follows:

 
 
(A) Grounds.  A new trial may be granted to all or 
any of the parties, and on all or part of the issues.  On a motion for a new trial in an action 
tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment, if one has been entered, 
take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make 
new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.  Subject to the provisions of Rule 61, a 
new trial may be granted for any of the following causes:

 
 
. . . 
.

 
 
(5)   Error in the assessment of the 
amount of recovery, whether too large or too small;

 
 
(6)   That the verdict, report or 
decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to 
law;

 
 
. . . 
.

 
 
[¶14]   Substantively, the Garrisons 
contended in their motion that the district court should have computed the 
judgment as follows, based upon the evidence presented at 
trial:

 
 


Actual 
      costs through September 2001 less overhead and profit from 9/6/01 
      invoice

 
 
$3,938,734.65

October 
      3, 2001 invoice less overhead and profit from 10/3/01 
      invoice

 
 
248,288.42

November 
      7, 2001 invoice less overhead and profit and labor from 11/7/01 
      invoice

 
 
30,030.91

December 
      11, 2001 invoice less overhead and profit and labor from 12/11/01 
      invoice

 
 
12,389.24

January 
      10, 2002 invoice less overhead and profit and labor from 12/11/01 
      invoice

 
 
3,327.27

                                    
      SUBTOTAL

 
 
$4,202,739.58

Less 
      reasonable cost found by court

3,723,458.00

 
 
                                    
      SUBTOTAL

$479,281.58

 
 
Plus 
      unreasonable bonuses and incentives

 
 

123,592.00

                                    
      SUBTOTAL

$602,873.58

 
 
Plus 
      change amount known before estimate

 
 

8,602.00

                                    
      SUBTOTAL

$611,475.58

 
 
Minus 
      change amounts caused by Garrisons

 
 
$110,989.00

                                    
      TOTAL

$500,486.58

 
 
[¶15]   CC Builders also filed a post-trial 
motion, entitled "Defendant's Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment."  The motion was filed pursuant to W.R.C.P. 
52(b), which provides as follows:

 
 
(b) Amendment or additional findings.  On a 
party's motion filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment; the court 
may amend special findings  or make additional findings  and may amend the 
judgment accordingly.  The motion 
may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.  When special findings of fact are made 
in actions tried without a jury, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 
findings may be later questioned whether or not in the court the party raising 
the question objected to the findings, moved to amend them, or moved for partial 
findings.

 
 
[¶16]   CC Builders argued in its motion 
that the trial evidence did not support the district court's finding that CC 
Builders had overcharged the Garrisons $123,592.00 for certain employee bonuses 
and incentives.  Specifically, CC 
Builders contended that one of the Garrisons' own witnesses, Barbara Fields, who 
had analyzed all of the invoices, testified that the Garrisons were billed 
$37,200.00 as bonus and incentive costs, plus 12% for profit and overhead, for a 
total of only $41,664.00  
Consequently, CC Builders sought a reduction in the judgment of 
$81,928.00.

 
 
[¶17]   In its second contention, CC 
Builders pointed out that, when the district court added hardscape and landscape 
costs to the estimated cost of construction, it failed to include all such costs 
proven by the evidence.  
Specifically, CC Builders identified amounts it paid Yellow Iron 
Excavating, Four Corners Concrete, and Taylor Quality Concrete from June through 
September 2001, totaling $127,295.36, that it asserted should be added to the 
reasonable cost of construction, thereby reducing the judgment by that 
amount.

 
 
[¶18]   In a supplemental motion, prepared 
after the trial transcripts were available, the Garrisons asked the district 
court to amend its finding that CC Builders did not commit fraud in its billing 
practices.  Further, the Garrisons 
broadly sought new or amended findings on numerous issues, including landscaping 
costs, labor billing, and the total reasonable cost of construction.  The Garrisons' fundamental contention 
was that the evidence showed that CC Builders had defrauded the Garrisons by 
billing for "phantom" workers and by hiding in its invoices amounts paid as 
Clint Cook's corporate salary.

 
 
[¶19]   The district court heard both 
motions to amend judgment on December 4, 2006, and issued an order denying them 
both on December 22, 2006.  The 
district court found that, through their motions, the parties were attempting to 
relitigate the case.  Ultimately, 
the district court concluded that its findings of fact were supported by the 
evidence.  Both sides have 
appealed.  The Garrisons focus upon 
the trial testimony, primarily alleging that the district court disregarded 
uncontradicted and unimpeached expert testimony as to the reasonable costs of 
construction.  CC Builders, on the 
other hand, questions the district court's damage calculations, especially in 
regard to landscape and hardscape costs, and the amount credited for employee 
bonuses and incentives.  In the 
third appeal, CC Builders contends that the district court abused its discretion 
in allowing certain costs to the Garrisons, including the cost of deposition 
transcripts not used at trial, and reporters' appearance 
fees.

 
 
[¶20]   One additional matter must be taken 
into account before we begin to discuss the issues raised herein.  On November 1, 2007, CC Builders 
requested leave of this court to file a motion in the district court under 
W.R.C.P. 60(a) to correct an alleged mathematical error in the judgment 
amount.  In their response, the 
Garrisons agreed that a mathematical error appeared to have occurred in the 
damage award.  This Court denied CC 
Builders' request under the guidance of Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of 
America, 837 P.2d 685, 686 (Wyo. 1992), wherein it is stated that, during 
the pendency of an appeal, the district court may consider and 
deny a W.R.C.P. 60 motion without leave of this Court, such leave being 
required only if the district court indicates an intent to grant the motion.  CC Builders then appropriately 
approached the district court with a W.R.C.P. 60(a) motion, and on November 28, 
2007, the district court indicated that it did, indeed, perceive a mathematical 
error in the damage award that was not the deliberate result of judicial 
reasoning, and that it would be inclined to correct the judgment when given 
authority by this Court to do so.  
Consequently, on December 18, 2007, this Court entered an order granting 
leave to the district court to correct the mistake.  On January 16, 2008, the district court 
entered an Order Amending Judgment Sum to Correct Clerical Mistake, in which it 
reduced the judgment amount from $131,962.77 to $72,062.77.  The latter amount is the amount of the 
judgment as far as these consolidated appeals are concerned. 

 
 
OBJECTION 
TO THE GARRISONS' BRIEF

 
 
[¶21]   Before we discuss the substantive 
matters involved in this case, we must address a procedural issue.  The Garrisons filed their brief as 
appellants in S-07-0132 on September 10, 2007.  CC Builders filed an objection to that 
brief, contending that it failed to comply with the dictates of W.R.A.P. 7.01, 
particularly in regard to its lack of citations to the record.  This Court sustained that objection and 
ordered the Garrisons to file a brief with appropriate record citations.  The Garrisons filed a second brief on 
December 3, 2007.  CC Builders again 
objected, this time complaining not only that the Garrisons' brief continued to 
lack appropriate citations, but that the brief had been changed in ways beyond 
the Court's order.  The Garrisons 
responded in support of their brief, pointing out the numerous citation 
corrections made in response to the Court's order.  We have examined the Garrisons' second 
brief and, although it continues to contain incomplete citations and 
multiple-page citations that are not very helpful, we conclude that it is 
adequate to allow us to utilize the record in analyzing the issues, and that it 
does not substantially add new issues to the controversy.  Therefore, we will deny CC Builders' 
request that we strike the brief or sanction the 
Garrisons.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Are the 
district court's findings of fact as todamages clearly 
erroneous?

 
 
[¶22]   In Snelling v. Roman, 2007 WY 49, ¶¶ 7-8, 154 P.3d 341, 
345 (Wyo. 2007), we reiterated our standard for reviewing the determinations of 
a district court after a bench trial:

 
 
            
After a bench trial, we review the trial court's factual findings under a 
clearly erroneous standard and its legal conclusions de novo.  We do not substitute ourselves for the 
trial court as a finder of facts; instead, we defer to the trial court's 
findings unless they are unsupported by the record or erroneous as a matter of 
law.  Although the factual findings 
of a trial court are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict, 
the findings are presumptively correct.

 
 
            
This Court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the 
record, but we do not reweigh the evidence.  Due regard is given to the opportunity 
of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses.  We accept the prevailing party's 
evidence as true and give to that evidence every favorable inference which may 
fairly and reasonably be drawn from it.  
Findings may not be set aside because we would have reached a different 
result.  A finding will only be set 
aside if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court on the entire 
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 
committed.

 
 

Id. 
(citations omitted).

 
 
[¶23]   The Garrisons' contention that the 
district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous begins with the premise 
that expert testimony is required to prove matters outside the common ken, 
including customs, standards, and practices of the construction industry.  In support of that proposition, the 
Garrisons cite three cases:  Roybal v. Bell, 778 P.2d 108 (Wyo. 1989); Logan 
v. Pacific Intermountain Express Company, 400 P.2d 488 (Wyo. 1965); and Govin v. Hunter, 374 P.2d 421 
(Wyo. 
1962).  We note that Roybal and Govin are both medical malpractice cases 
wherein we held that, in professional negligence actions, proof of the standard 
of care requires expert testimony.  
Roybal, 778 P.2d  at 112; Govin, 374 P.2d  at 422.4  Logan, another 
negligence case, does speak to the point of whether certain matters are of 
"common knowledge," thereby obviating the need for expert testimony.  Logan, 400 P.2d  
at 493.  CC Builders does not 
contest the assertion that expert testimony is required to prove reasonable 
costs under a "cost plus" building contract, and cites no authority to the 
contrary.  Consequently, we will 
accept the Garrisons' proposition and apply it in this case.5

 
 
[¶24]   The gravamen of the Garrisons' 
argument in regard to the district court's findings of fact as to damages is 
that the district court did not accept the "uncontradicted and unimpeached" 
opinion of their expert witness, Timothy Ciocarlin, that the reasonable cost to 
construct the house, excluding landscaping, was $3,000,000.00.  To the contrary, the district court found 
the reasonable cost of construction was $3,783,448.00, which total included 
landscaping costs.  See supra ¶ 11, n.3.  CC Builders responds, first, that a 
trier of fact is not obligated to accept an expert's opinion, where that 
expert's credibility has been impeached.  
See, e.g., Willis v. State, 2002 WY 79, ¶ 18, 46 P.3d 890, 896 (Wyo. 2002) (impeachment by prior inconsistent statements shows 
witness capable of making errors in testimony); Rhoades v. K-Mart Corp., 863 P.2d 626, 
633 (Wyo. 1993) (inconsistencies between deposition testimony and trial 
testimony are "fair game" for impeachment purposes); Misner v. Newton, 448 P.2d 595, 599-600 
(Wyo. 1968) (trial judge may question credibility where conflicting statements 
have been made).  Second, CC 
Builders contends that Ciocarlin's testimony was contradicted not only by his 
own earlier deposition testimony, but by the trial testimony of CC Builders' 
expert witnesses.

 
 
[¶25]   Having reviewed the entire record, 
and having examined the judgment entered by the district court, we conclude that 
CC Builders is correct.  Ciocarlin's 
testimony was far from being "uncontradicted and unimpeached."  While there are too many instances to 
recite them all, a few examples may suffice:  (1) during cross-examination at trial, 
numerous deficiencies were uncovered in Ciocarlin's estimation of the reasonable 
cost of construction, including unexplained variances in the amount of his 
different estimates and factually incorrect assumptions about building 
conditions and requirements; (2) there were differences between Ciocarlin's 
deposition testimony and his trial testimony; and  (3) there was contradicting testimony 
from CC Builders' expert witnesses, especially in regard to reasonable labor 
costs.  Under these circumstances, 
we conclude both that it was not unreasonable for the district court to 
disregard some or all of Ciocarlin's testimony, and that there was other 
sufficient evidence from which the district court could determine the reasonable 
cost of construction.

 
 
[¶26]   In its cross-appeal, CC Builders 
raises the same two issues that it raised in its motion to amend the district 
court's findings.  First, it 
contends that the district court did not include all landscape and hardscape 
costs in its determination of the reasonable cost of construction, and second, 
it contends that the district court's finding as to the amount of unreasonable 
employee bonus and incentive costs billed to and paid by the Garrisons was not 
supported by the evidence.

 
 
[¶27]   In rendering its judgment, the 
district court added certain landscape and hardscape costs to the estimate CC 
Builders provided to the Garrisons on March 2, 2001.  See supra ¶ 11.  Those additions included $171,163.00 for 
additional masonry, and $244,409.00 for landscaping.  CC Builders appeals that portion of the 
Judgment on the ground that, while the district court meant to include the cost 
of landscape and hardscape in the total reasonable cost of construction, it 
failed to include all such costs.  
Specifically, CC Builders contends that the district court overlooked the 
sum of $127,295.36 incurred by CC Builders for landscape and hardscape labor and 
materials prior to September 1, 2001.

 
 
[¶28]   The district court obtained the 
additional sums mentioned above from a Garrison exhibit (Plaintiff's Exhibit 
60), which was a comparison of the March 2, 2001 estimate and actual 
expenditures as of September 6, 2001.  
See supra ¶ 27.  CC Builders contends that this exhibit 
did not include other landscape and hardscape costs incurred prior to September 
1, 2001, as shown on their exhibits 5N-5Q, which were CC Builders' invoices to 
the Garrisons dated June 5, 2001, July 9, 2001, August 10, 2001, and September 
6, 2001.  Those exhibits show the 
following expenses, which CC Builders claims are landscape or hardscape costs 
never included in the district court's calculation of the reasonable cost of 
construction, and therefore never credited to them in the damage 
equation:

 
 


Yellow 
      Iron Excavating

$37,825.12

13,956.99

7,565.38

7,437.80

Four 
      Corners 
      Concrete

18,250.00

Taylor 
      Quality Concrete

9,196.00

 
 

35,850.00

                        
      TOTAL

$130,081.29

 
 
[¶29]   It is unclear from the record or 
from the briefs why this amount is more than the $127,295.36 that CC Builders 
believes should be added to the total reasonable cost of construction.  CC Builders refers in its brief to an 
affidavit of Clint Cook purportedly attached to its motion to amend the 
judgment, but that affidavit has not been included in the record on appeal.  The transcript of the post-trial motion 
hearing also suggests that the $127,295.36 figure is explained in that 
affidavit, but the affidavit likewise is not attached to that 
transcript.

 
 
[¶30]   If we are to give meaning to the 
language of our standard of review, especially the idea that we accept the 
district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, we cannot 
in this case reverse the district court's damage award as it relates to the 
inclusion of landscape and hardscape costs in its computation of the amount of 
damages.  What we are faced with is 
an assertion by counsel that $127,295.36 should be added to landscape and 
hardscape costs because amounts reflected in various invoices total that 
sum.  However, the district court 
relied upon specific numbers from a different exhibit, which means that there 
was an underlying evidentiary basis for the district court's conclusion.  In that situation, we cannot say the 
district court was wrong just because other exhibits may 
have suggested that other numbers were correct.  CC Builders has not met its burden of 
proving that the district court's findings of fact were clearly 
erroneous.

 
 
[¶31]   The second issue raised in CC 
Builders' cross-appeal is the amount of employee bonus and incentive costs 
billed to the Garrisons that the district court found 
to be unreasonable.  That 
amount$123,592.00was added as an "overcharge" in determining the final 
judgment amount owed by CC Builders to the Garrisons.  See supra ¶ 12.  
The actual finding of the district court was as 
follows:

 
 
            
g) Overcharged:  
Bonuses/Incentives.  The 
management incentives and bonuses were a portion of the pay packages for the CC 
Builders employees working the Garrison house.  Experts Wilkinson, Ciocarlin and 
Chandler all 
testified that management incentives and bonuses are a cost of doing business, 
and it is appropriate to pass these costs on to the owner.  The Court will give more weight to 
Ciocarlin's testimony that the bonuses and incentives charged by CC Builders of 
$123,592.00 were excessive and not in accordance with industry and custom.  These charges, which include 33% labor 
bonuses and 12% overhead and profit, were not reasonable and proper.  [CC Builders'] expert, Chandler, also expressed an opinion that the Lund bonus plus a month 
off "seemed high."  [The Garrisons] 
should not be responsible for this amount.

 
 
[¶32]   CC Builders contends that, although 
$110,350.00 in employee bonuses and incentives may have been "attributable" to 
the Garrisons' project, the Garrisons actually were only invoiced directly for 
$37,200.00 of that amount.6  As explained by Lisa Cook, the process 
was this:  CC Builders actually paid 
its employees $82,970.00 for bonuses and incentives attributable to the 
Garrisons' project.  Of that amount, 
the Garrisons were invoiced directly only $37,200.00, with the balance paid out 
of the "labor burden" that was otherwise charged to the Garrisons.  The 12% overhead and profit figure was 
added to the $37,200.00, but not to the balance that came out of the labor 
burden percentage.

 
 
[¶33]   Even considering Mrs. Cook's 
explanation of the method of payment, we cannot conclude that the district 
court's finding, that such amounts were unreasonable, was clearly 
erroneous.  Timothy Ciocarlin 
testified, for instance, that these amounts "far exceed[] any bonus that I've 
ever heard of and seen."  In 
particular, he singled out the $54,000.00 bonus paid to Kurt Lund as being 
"excessive because it's almost a year's pay for a good paid 
superintendent."

 
 
Are the 
district court's conclusions of law as to damages inconsistent with its findings 
of fact?

 
 
[¶34]   The specifics of this allegation 
are very hard to identify in the Garrisons' brief.  We believe the allegation is summed up 
in the following paragraph quoted therefrom:

 
 
            
With the trial court's finding that the parties had formed an oral 
cost-plus contract, the [Garrisons] are only obligated to pay the "fair and 
reasonable costs of construction".  
By this finding, the damage award to which the [Garrisons] are entitled 
is the difference between the total amount paid by the [Garrisons] to [CC 
Builders] and the fair and reasonable cost of construction.  The trial court erred by failing to 
award the proper contract damages to the [Garrisons].

 
 
[¶35]   In reality, this issue is merely a 
"rehash" of the Garrisons' first issue.  
Rather than directing this Court's attention to specific inconsistencies 
between the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, or 
pointing out the district court's alleged errors of law in computing damages, 
the Garrisons simply reargue the facts, from their perspective, and with the 
assumption that their expert's testimony was unimpeached.  This, of course, is little more than an 
attempt to get us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.  Hayzlett v. Hayzlett, 2007 WY 147, ¶ 8, 
167 P.3d 639, 642 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
[¶36]   The major difficulty with the 
Garrisons' argument is their belief that, but for their expert's testimony, 
there was no evidence from which the district court could determine the 
reasonable cost of construction of the house.  In truth, as found by the district 
court, the total reasonable cost was made up of 
many "sub-costs," for which there was a considerable amount of testimony on both 
sides.  The best example, perhaps, 
is the custom of contractors assessing a "labor burden" under construction 
contracts.  "Labor burden" includes 
non-discretionary indirect labor costs, such as workers' compensation and 
unemployment insurance premiums, and payroll taxes.  Succinctly stated, the Garrisons' 
position is that, because CC Builders did not assess its labor burden precisely 
as did the Garrisons' expert, CC Builders' assessment was unreasonable.  But if the testimony of the various 
experts is compared, it becomes clear that no two contractors in TetonCounty assess labor burden exactly the 
same way.  In turn, it cannot be 
said that the district court was unreasonable in concluding, as it did, that 
aside from certain bonus and incentive charges, the Garrisons had not shown CC 
Builders' labor burden charges to be improper.7

 
 
[¶37]   The Garrisons couch this issue in 
terms of the district court not following its own announced methodology in 
determining the damage award.  That 
"methodology" was for the district court to attempt to determine the reasonable 
value of construction.  That is what 
the district court did, but the Garrisons believe that the district court did 
not use the right numbers in doing so, resulting in an inconsistency between its 
findings of fact and its conclusions of law.  We disagree.  The district court simply used different 
numbers derived from the evidence presented than the numbers the Garrisons would 
have preferred.

 
 
Did the 
district court err in concluding that CC Builders

had not 
committed fraud?

 
 
[¶38]   Count II of the Garrisons' 
Complaint alleged that CC Builders had fraudulently induced them to enter into 
the construction project by promising that the house would cost $350 per square 
foot to build.  It also alleged that 
CC Builders had fraudulently charged them improperly for certain labor costs, 
and had misappropriated construction materials.  The district court's Judgment contains 
numerous findings and conclusions relevant to these accusations:  (1) CC Builders did not promise to build 
the house for $350 per square foot; (2) the Garrisons were not billed for any 
materials not used in the project; (3) some employee incentives and bonuses 
billed by CC Builders to the Garrisons were unreasonable because they were 
outside industry custom; and (4) CC Builders was not guilty of 
fraud.

 
 
[¶39]   On appeal, the Garrisons argue that 
the district court failed to make any findings or reach any conclusions as to 
the fraud allegation relating to CC Builders' labor billing practices, and they 
further argue that the district court should have found CC Builders guilty of 
fraud because of the confidential relationship that arose out of the friendship 
between the Garrison and Cook families.  Having thoroughly combed the record, we 
agree with the district court that the Garrisons did not prove their fraud 
claims against CC Builders.  To 
prove fraud, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) 
the defendant made a false representation intended to induce action by the 
plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff reasonably believed the representation to be true; 
and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages in relying upon the false 
representation.  Bitker v. First Nat'l Bank in Evanston, 2004 WY 114, 
¶ 12, 98 P.3d 853, 856 (Wyo. 2004).  
Fraud is never presumed.  
Id.  Evidence is clear and convincing if it 
persuades the trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly 
probable.  Alexander v. Meduna, 2002 WY 83, ¶ 29, 
47 P.3d 206, 216 (Wyo. 2002).  Where 
"actual fraud" has not been shown, a defendant may still be guilty of 
"constructive fraud" in situations where a special confidential relationship 
between the parties created a fiduciary duty in the defendant to act with the 
plaintiff's interests in mind.  Johnson v. Reiger, 2004 WY 83, ¶¶ 22, 
24, 93 P.3d 992, 998, 999 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶40]   We do not see clear and convincing 
evidence of actual fraud anywhere in the record.  The district court's finding that the 
parties entered into a cost-plus contract, rather than a per-square-foot 
contract is not clearly erroneous.  
Furthermore, there is simply no evidence of a false representation by CC 
Builders in that regard, much less detrimental reliance thereon by the 
Garrisons.  The reasonable cost of 
construction was a moving target throughout construction, given the fact that 
construction commenced without a formal set of plans having been completed, and 
given the changes authorized along the way.  Finally, we are unwilling to find a 
confidential relationship under these facts that would support constructive 
fraud.  The casual friendship 
between the two families does not suffice in that regard, and it certainly does 
not do so in this case, where Mr. Garrison was a successful and sophisticated 
businessman.8  We are also unwilling to hold that the 
existence of a cost-plus construction contract always creates a fiduciary 
relationship between the contractor and the owner.  See Johnson, 2004 WY 83, ¶ 25, 93 P.3d  
at 999 ("Fiduciary relationships are extraordinary and not easily 
created").

 
 
[¶41]   In regard to their fraud count 
relating to labor charges, the Garrisons allege that CC Builders' monthly 
statements contained hidden salary and labor charges that were not customary in 
the industry.  This allegation must 
fail primarily because the testimony of industry custom and practice was not 
sufficiently uniform to establish that any deviation therefrom must be 
fraudulent.  In addition, the 
evidence does not show that CC Builders misrepresented anything to the 
Garrisons; instead, its monthly invoices simply did not detail individual salary 
and labor computations.  The 
district court found that, at most, some of these charges were not reasonable, 
and therefore exceeded the reasonable cost of a "cost plus" contract.  The evidence supports that conclusion, 
especially because, to find out the details of the billing, the Garrisons simply 
would have had to ask CC Builders for the information, which they never 
did.

 
 
Did the 
district court abuse its discretion in its award

of costs 
to the Garrisons?

 
 
[¶42]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-124 
(LexisNexis 2007) provides that costs "shall be allowed to a plaintiff upon a 
judgment in his favor in an action for the recovery of money . . . 
."  Similarly, W.R.C.P. 54(d)(1) 
provides that costs "shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party 
unless the court otherwise directs[.]"  
U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3) sets forth the guidelines governing allowable costs, 
while U.R.D.C. 501(a)(4) makes it clear that the guidelines are not mandatory, 
but that the trial court decision as to whether to award lawful costs is 
discretionary.  We review the 
taxation of costs upon an abuse of discretion standard.  Garnick v. Teton County Sch. Dist. No. 
1, 2002 WY 18, ¶ 35, 39 P.3d 1034, 1049 (Wyo. 2002).  The relevant question is whether the 
trial court reasonably could have concluded as it did, given the 
circumstances.  Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 
1084 (Wyo. 
1999).

 
 
[¶43]   Nine days after entry of the 
Judgment in this case, the Garrisons filed a Bill of Costs totaling $11,042.70. 
 CC Builders filed a timely 
objection.  The matter was heard on 
March 20, 2007, and the Garrisons' costs were awarded as requested by an 
Order entered on June 1, 2007.  The district court found the "amount of 
costs to be paid by [CC Builders] are fair and reasonable and in proportion to 
the Judgment . . . ."

 
 
[¶44]   In the third of these related 
appeals, CC Builders has challenged this award of costs.  The entire Bill of Costs is based upon 
the expense of pre-trial depositions.  
U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) governs the award of such 
costs:

 
 
(D)     Costs of 
depositions.

 
 
(i)      Costs of 
depositions are taxable if reasonably necessary for the preparation of the case 
for trial.  A deposition is deemed 
reasonably necessary if:

 
 
I.      Read to the jury 
as provided in Rule 32(a)(3), W.R.C.P.;

 
 
II.     Used at trial for 
impeachment concerning a material line of testimony (impeachment on a collateral 
issue does not fall within the scope of this rule);

 
 
III.    Necessarily, and not merely 
conveniently, used to refresh the recollection of a witness while on the stand; 
or,

 
 
IV.   Was taken at the request of a 
nonprevailing party.

 
 
        The 
foregoing are meant to provide guidelines, and are not exhaustive.  The use of depositions for trial 
preparation alone does not justify the imposition of 
costs.

 
 
(ii)     Reporters fees for 
depositions.  Actual, ordinary 
reporting fees will be allowed.  
Extra costs for expediting transcripts or daily copy costs will not be 
allowed, except as authorized by an order entered prior to the date such costs 
are to be incurred.  Reporters' 
travel, per diem expenses and appearance fees will not be taxed as 
costs.

 
 
(iii)    Fees and expenses of 
counsel.  Fees and expenses of 
counsel for traveling to and attending depositions are not taxable as 
costs.

 
 
[¶45]   The burden is upon the party 
seeking the award of discovery deposition costs to show that those costs were 
reasonably necessary for trial preparation, in that they met one of the 
guidelines of U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D), or an equivalent rationale.  Cundy Asphalt Paving Constr. v. Angelo 
Materials Co., 915 P.2d 1181, 1183-84 (Wyo. 1996).  A verified bill of costs is prima facie evidence that the items 
listed were necessarily expended and are properly taxable as costs.  20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs § 91 (2005).

 
 
[¶46]   CC Builders' objection to an award 
of costs to the Garrisons begins with the argument that the Garrisons should not 
even be considered the "prevailing party" under W.R.C.P. 54(d) because they did 
not prevail on several of their contract breach claims, on their fraud claim, or 
on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and CC Builders substantially 
prevailed on its counterclaim, thereby reducing the judgment amount.  In support of this contention, CC 
Builders cites several cases where federal courts have interpreted Fed.R.Civ.P. 
54(d) as giving trial courts broad discretion to 
deny an award of costs in cases with "mixed outcomes."  See Testa v. Village of Mundelein, 89 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 1996); Arp Films, 
Inc. v. Marvel Entm't Group, Inc., 952 F.2d 643, 651 (2d Cir. 1991); Johnson v. Nordstrom-Larpenteur Agency, 
Inc., 623 F.2d 1279, 1282 (8th Cir. 1980); Tao of Systems Integration, Inc. v. 
Analytical Servs. & Materials, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 571, 574 (E.D. 
Va. 2006); All West Pet Supply Co. v. 
Hill's Pet Products Div., 153 F.R.D. 667, 669 (D. Kan. 
1994).

 
 
[¶47]   We believe that the instant case 
fundamentally was a breach of contract case, won for the most part by the 
Garrisons.  The district court did 
not abuse its discretion in finding the Garrisons to be the prevailing party and 
in awarding their costs.  The 
central issuewhether the Garrisons had been overcharged under the "cost plus" 
construction contractwas determined in their favor.  The fact that the final judgment amount 
was less than what they sought does not mean they did not prevail for the 
purpose of awarding costs.

 
 
[¶48]   The district court's award of costs 
cannot, however, survive completely unscathed.  The Garrisons' Bill of Costs was not 
verified and thus does not obtain the status of prima facie evidence of the amounts 
sought.  Furthermore, of the ten 
discovery depositions for which the Garrisons sought an award of costs, only two 
were used at trialthose of Larry Berlin and Kurt Lund.  As admitted by CC Builders, three of the 
remaining depositionsthose of Wayne 
Garrison, Pamela Garrison, and Tim Ciocarlinwere noticed by CC Builders, and 
the appropriate costs related thereto are awardable to the Garrisons.  But there is no substantiation for an 
award of costs for the five remaining depositions.

 
 
[¶49]   We have said more than once that 
the criteria in U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) are guidelines, rather than being an 
exhaustive list.  Gore v. Sherard, 2002 WY 114, ¶ 21, 50 P.3d 705, 711-12 (Wyo. 2002); Snyder v. 
Lovercheck, 2001 WY 64, ¶ 15, 27 P.3d 695, 700 (Wyo. 2001).  At the same time, however, the Rule 
clearly requires a showing of something more than use of the deposition for 
trial preparation.  Unfortunately, 
the record in the instant case does not contain a transcript of the district 
court hearing on the motion to award costs, so we do not know what arguments may 
have been advanced by the Garrisons at that time.  Beyond that, the district court's 
finding that the amounts were "fair and reasonable and in proportion to the 
Judgment" does not reveal any analysis under the Rule.  In their appellate brief, the Garrisons 
justify the award of costs on dual grounds:  that all of the deponents testified at 
trial, and that the discovery was necessary to determine the reasonable cost of 
construction of the house.

 
 
[¶50]   We conclude that the Garrisons have 
not overcome the limiting language of U.R.D.C. 501(a)(3)(D) in regard to the 
five discovery depositions that were neither used at trial nor noticed by CC 
Builders.  Consequently, we will 
reverse the award of costs as to those depositions.  The remaining fivethose of Larry 
Berlin, Kurt Lund, Wayne Garrison, 
Pamela Garrison, and Tim Ciocarlinare eligible under the Rule, but require 
further analysis.

 
 
[¶51]   Costs were awarded for Larry 
Berlin's deposition in the total amount of $1,748.25.  The individual charges were as 
follows:

 
 


428 
      pages

$1,565.50

Appearance 
      fees

135.00

Computer 
      disks

20.00

Preparation/handling

10.00

Exhibits

17.75

            
              
      TOTAL

$1,748.25

 
 
[¶52]   We interpret U.R.D.C. 
501(a)(3)(D)(ii) as allowing an award of costs for the per page and exhibit 
fees, but not for the appearance fees or extraordinary fees such as computer 
disks, and preparation and handling.  
Deducting those latter amounts from the total, the award of costs for 
Larry Berlin's deposition should have been $1,583.25.

 
 
[¶53]   The total cost award for Kurt 
Lund's depositions was $3,650.50.  
Our math, which follows, shows a corrected total of 
$3,620.50:

 
 


703 
      pages

$2,636.25

Exhibits/photographs

34.25

Appearance 
      fees

225.00

Videography

710.00

Preparation/handling

15.00

           
      TOTAL

$3,620.50

 
 
[¶54]   Following the same logic applied to 
the Berlin 
deposition, this total must be reduced by the amount of the appearance fees, and 
the extraordinary fees for videography, and preparation and handling, leaving a 
total awardable amount of $2,670.50.

 
 
[¶55]   The Garrisons sought an award of 
costs for the deposition of Wayne 
Garrison, but the invoices related thereto apparently could not be located, and 
the amounts were not included in the Bill of Costs or the award.  As to Pamela Garrison, the Bill of Costs 
sought $894.00, and that amount was awarded.  However, there is no invoice in the 
record detailing this cost, and therefore, there is no indication in the record 
that the district court exercised any discretion in awarding that sum.  We conclude that the award was 
arbitrary, and must be reversed.

 
 
[¶56]   Costs sought and awarded for the 
depositions of Tim Ciocarlin totaled $661.45, even though the invoices attached 
to the Bill of Costs show the following amounts assigned to his various 
depositions:

 
 


299 
      pages

$433.55

Exhibits

56.10

Computer 
      disk

10.00

Preparation/handling

10.00

149 
      pages

216.05

Exhibits

41.45

Preparation/handling

10.00

92 
      Pages

151.80

              
             
      TOTAL

$928.95

 
 
[¶57]   The amount awarded appears to be 
the sum of the amounts related to the 299 page deposition, and the 92 page 
deposition.  The record does not 
reflect why the costs of the 149 page deposition were not included.  We will not include those costs on our 
own initiative.  Subtracting the 
computer disk and preparation and handling fees, the correct amount of the award 
should have been $641.45.

 
 
[¶58]   Pursuant to these calculations, the 
costs awarded in the Judgment must be reduced from $11,042.70 to 
$4,895.20.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶59]   The district court's findings of 
fact are not clearly erroneous, its conclusions of law are not inconsistent with 
its findings of fact, and it did not err in concluding that the Garrisons had 
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that CC Builders committed 
fraud.  The Judgment, as reduced by 
the district court upon remand to $72,062.77, is affirmed.  The award of costs, however, must be 
reduced to $4,895.20, and we remand to the district court for entry of a new 
judgment in the appropriate amount.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1"Hardscape" 
costs included such things as garden walls, a heated driveway, heated patios, 
and a bridge.

 
 

2Clint and 
Lisa Cook were also sued individually.  
Eventually, the judgment was only against the corporation.  No issue has been raised in this appeal 
as to the question of personal liability.

 
 

3This 
calculation is in error, as will be discussed hereinafter.  The correct sum is 
$3,783,448.00.

 
 

4We have 
said this same thing many, many times.  
See, e.g., Garaman, Inc. v. 
Williams, 912 P.2d 1121, 1123 (Wyo. 1996); 
Moore v. Lubnau, 855 P.2d 1245, 1254 
(Wyo. 1993) (Golden J., specially concurring); 
Kemper Architects, P.C. v. McFall, Konkel 
& Kimball Consulting Eng'rs, 843 P.2d 1178, 1186 (Wyo. 1992).  While instructive, these cases do not 
speak directly to the question of the need for expert testimony to establish the 
reasonable cost of construction under a "cost plus" 
contract.

 
 

5See 
13 Am. 
Jur. 2d Building and Construction 
Contracts § 126 (2000).

 
 

6It is 
unclear why the trial testimony discussed a total of $110,350.00 for bonuses and 
incentives, as opposed to the $123,592.00 figure found by the district 
court.

 
 

7Jeff 
Wilkinson, a certified public accountant, testified that his clients include 
about two dozen Teton County contractors, and that labor burden could include 
any of various direct and indirect costs associated with an employee, including 
vacation, overtime, health insurance, pension, tool repairs, vehicle 
reimbursement, and bonuses.

 
 

8Wayne 
Garrison, a self-made multi-millionaire, was the president and chief executive 
officer of J.B. Hunt Transport, the nation's largest trucking 
firm.