Title: JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA F. KOST v. HONORABLE WILLIAM R. THATCH, Justince of the Peace, Lovell, Wyoming ; HONORABLE WILLIAM R. THATCH, Justince of the Peace, Lovell, Wyoming v. JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA F. KOST

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA F. KOST v. HONORABLE WILLIAM R. THATCH, Justince of the Peace, Lovell, Wyoming ; HONORABLE WILLIAM R. THATCH, Justince of the Peace, Lovell, Wyoming v. JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA F. KOST1989 WY 199782 P.2d 230Case Number: 88-94, 89-95Decided: 11/17/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA 
F. KOST, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),

v.

HONORABLE WILLIAM R. 
THATCH, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LOVELL, WYOMING, APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

HONORABLE WILLIAM R. 
THATCH, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LOVELL, WYOMING, APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT),

v.

JAMES F. KOST AND BARBARA 
F. KOST, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Big HornCounty, Hunter Patrick, 
J.

James F. Kost 
and Barbara F. Kost, pro 
se.

Randy L. Royal, 
Greybull, for William R. 
Thatch.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY 
and GOLDEN, JJ. 

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
a summary judgment in favor of the Honorable William R. Thatch, Justice of the 
Peace, Lovell, Wyoming. James F. Kost1 petitioned the district court for a 
peremptory writ of mandamus and an order of prohibition to compel Thatch's 
transmission to the district court of materials required for an appeal to that 
court. The district court granted summary judgment to Thatch upon a finding that 
Kost failed to perfect his appeal.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     On July 6, 1988, Kost 
appeared before Thatch in response to a complaint filed by the First Interstate 
Bank of Greybull. The bank sought possession of a parcel of land occupied by 
Kost and his wife and a writ of restitution. Thatch rendered a judgment and 
issued a writ of restitution in favor of the bank.

[¶4.]     Within ten days, Kost 
notified the clerk of court that he intended to appeal the decisions. The clerk 
informed Kost that Kost would be unable to appeal until he complied with the 
bond requirement of Wyo. Stat. § 1-21-1014 (1977).2 Kost did not secure a bond, file a 
notice of appeal, pay the required fees, or seek an extension of the filing 
period. Instead, on July 12, 1988, Kost petitioned the district court for a writ 
of peremptory mandamus and an order of prohibition. On March 15, 1989, the 
district court granted summary judgment in favor of 
Thatch.

[¶5.]     On appeal to this 
Court, Kost failed to include page references to the record in his brief. 
W.R.A.P. 5.01(3) requires that the appellant's brief contain "appropriate page 
references to the record." See Waggoner v. General Motors Corporation, 771 P.2d 1195 (Wyo. 1989), and V-1 Oil Company v. Ranck, 
767 P.2d 612 (Wyo. 1989). If a party fails to comply with 
the appellate rules prescribed by this Court, we may sanction that party by 
dismissing the appeal. W.R.A.P. 1.02. See also Fallis v. Louisiana Pacific 
Corporation, 763 P.2d 1267 (Wyo. 1988); and 
Strang Telecasting, Inc. v. Ernst, 610 P.2d 1011 (Wyo. 
1980).

[¶6.]     We have previously 
warned litigants that they must follow the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
Waggoner, 771 P.2d 1195; V-1 Oil Company, 767 P.2d 612. Most recently in 
Jung-Leonczynska v. Steup, 782 P.2d 578 (Wyo. 1989), we cautioned yet another litigant 
that she must comply with W.R.A.P. 5.01(3). In that case, the Court did not 
dismiss the appeal, as the information germane to the appellant's issues was 
easily found in the short record. The absence of page references, therefore, did 
not hamper the review process. Jung-Leonczynska, 782 P.2d 578.

[¶7.]     We will not impose the 
harsh sanction of dismissal in this case as it is clear from a cursory glance at 
the record that Kost failed to file a proper notice of appeal as mandated by 
W.R.A.P.C.L.J. 2.02. The filing of a proper notice of appeal is jurisdictional, 
and, consequently, the nonjurisdictional issues do not need to be pursued. If it 
had been necessary to address these issues without the aid of appropriate 
references to the record, this Court would have seriously considered the 
sanction of dismissal.

[¶8.]     
Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 We note that the caption 
in this case is the same as it appeared in the judgment rendered by the district 
court. The district court, however, concluded that Barbara F. Kost was not a 
party. Because our ruling under W.R.A.P.C.L.J. 2.02 is dispositive, we will not 
address any issues which may be derived from the caption.

2 Section 1-21-1014(b) 
provides for a stay, pending appeal, of forcible entry and unlawful detainer 
proceedings if the defendant executes and files a bond with two or more 
sufficient sureties.