Title: Cottonwood Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Roberts

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Cottonwood Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Roberts1994 WY 59874 P.2d 897Case Number: 93-222Decided: 05/26/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
COTTONWOOD 
VALLEY RANCH, INC.; Norman J. Hayes, d/b/a Standing Star Ranch; and Rodney 
Hayes,

Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),

v.

Arthur 
D. ROBERTS and Mary J. Roberts, d/b/a Roberts Cattle Services, Inc., formerly a 
Montana corporation (now defunct),

Appellees 
(Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court, Park County, Hunter Patrick, 
J.

 

Representing 
Appellants:

Georg 
Jensen, Cheyenne.

Representing 
Appellees:

James 
P. Castberg, Sheridan.

 

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

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants, who 
sued appellee for breach of contract concerning the sale of bull semen and for 
declaratory judgment as to the ownership of certain unsold semen, appeal only 
the portion of the district court's decision which denied monetary damages for 
breach of contract.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellants 
present the following issue for review:

Did 
the district court err in failing to award damages and prejudgment interest to 
the plaintiffs after finding that the contract between the plaintiff and 
defendant was breached?

[¶4]      Appellee reframes 
the issue as:

The 
district court did not commit error in failing to award damages and prejudgment 
interest to the plaintiffs.

FACTS

[¶5]      At the time this 
dispute arose, appellants were engaged in a livestock management and artificial 
insemination business. Appellee operated, and continues to operate, a business 
collecting semen from registered bulls, freezing it, and storing it until it is 
ready for use. In connection with the operation of their business, appellants 
contracted with appellee to collect semen from appellants' bulls and to store 
such semen for later use or sale.

[¶6]      In March 1986, 
after appellants had fallen behind on their account with appellee for storage 
and collection charges, the parties entered into an agreement which provided 
that appellee would sell the bull semen owned by appellants, applying seventy 
percent of the proceeds to appellants' account and retaining thirty percent as 
appellee's usual commission. Within a couple of months of entering the 
agreement, appellants contacted appellee and demanded return of the remaining 
bull semen. Appellants alleged appellee was selling the bull semen at a price 
below the agreed upon price. Appellee refused to return the bull 
semen.

[¶7]      On August 1, 
1988, appellants filed a complaint in district court seeking damages for lost 
profits on the bull semen sold at the allegedly reduced price and for appellee's 
refusal to return the unsold semen. On February 1, 1993, following a bench 
trial, the district court issued its decision letter declaring that appellee was 
not entitled to retain the unsold bull semen and directing that it be returned 
to appellants. The district court concluded, however, 
that:

Any 
attempt by the Court to assess damages in favor of the plaintiffs and against 
the Defendants for breach of contract, conversion and wrongfully withholding the 
bull semen, would be so extremely speculative that they should not be awarded. 
This Court has no means of calculating the amount of such damages, and the 
plaintiffs have not presented an evidentiary basis which would even enable this 
Court to hazard a close guess.

[¶8]      It is this 
portion of the district court decision which appellants appeal. A transcript of 
the trial was not included in the designated record on 
appeal.

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      This court will 
not set aside a district court's findings of fact unless those findings are 
clearly erroneous. Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 
538 (Wyo. 1993); Ferguson v. Reed, 822 P.2d 1287, 1290 (Wyo. 1991). "A 
finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, 
the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 
has been committed." Hopper, 861 P.2d  at 538 (quoting United States v. 
United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542, 92 L. Ed. 746 
(1948)).

[¶10]   Appellants contend that the 
district court should have awarded damages based on its factual findings that an 
agreement existed as to the sale of the semen and the price at which it was to 
be sold, and that appellee breached that agreement. All that remains to 
ascertain the amount of damages, according to appellants, is a simple 
mathematical computation.

[¶11]   Wyoming's rules governing damages 
recovery are well established. Damages must be proven with a reasonable degree 
of certainty, and a court may not resort to speculation or conjecture in 
determining the proper amount to award. Hopper, 861 P.2d  at 547; 
Coulthard v. Cossairt, 803 P.2d 86, 92 (Wyo. 1990); Reiman Const. Co. 
v. Jerry Hiller Co., 709 P.2d 1271, 1277 (Wyo. 1985). The party seeking 
recovery of damages carries the burden of proof. Willmschen v. Meeker, 
750 P.2d 669, 672 (Wyo. 1988); Broyles v. Broyles, 711 P.2d 1119, 1124 
(Wyo. 1985).

[¶12]   While the district court did find 
that the parties had agreed upon a price at which the bull semen would be sold, 
it concluded that appellants had nonetheless failed to present an evidentiary 
basis which would enable the court to calculate damages, without resort to 
speculation and conjecture. Appellants did not designate a transcript of the 
trial testimony as part of the record on appeal, and have not, as a result, 
pointed to evidence in the record demonstrating the district court's 
determination was clearly erroneous. Because appellants have not demonstrated 
that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous, we must 
uphold those findings.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   Appellants have not shown the 
district court's findings of fact to be clearly erroneous. The decision of the 
district court is affirmed.