Title: WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION v. BONNIE SMITH, WAYNE GRAVES, AND KENNETH N. GRAVES

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION v. BONNIE SMITH, WAYNE GRAVES, AND KENNETH N. GRAVES1989 WY 113773 P.2d 941Case Number: 88-148, 88-149Decided: 05/17/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF 
THE ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM THE WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION (TWO CASES). 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH 
COMMISSION, APPELLANT (RESPONDENT),

v.

BONNIE SMITH, WAYNE 
GRAVES, AND KENNETH N. GRAVES, APPELLEES (CLAIMANTS).

BONNIE SMITH, WAYNE 
GRAVES, AND KENNETH N. GRAVES, APPELLANTS (CLAIMANTS),

v.

WYOMING GAME AND FISH 
COMMISSION, APPELLEE (RESPONDENT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, JohnsonCounty, James N. Wolfe, 
J.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen. and Robert A. Nicholas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Wyoming Game and Fish 
Com'n.

Margo Harlan 
Sabec and Thomas Reese of Brown & Drew, Casper, for Bonnie Smith, Wayne Graves and Kenneth 
N. Graves.

Before THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ., and 
BROWN, Ret. J.

BROWN, Justice, 
Retired.

[¶1.]     Appellant Wyoming Game 
and Fish Commission (Commission) appeals from an order of the district court 
denying its motion to vacate an award of an arbitration board on claims for 
damages by appellees-claimants, Bonnie Smith, Wayne Graves and Kenneth N. 
Graves, for domestic sheep killed by mountain lions. The Commission contends 
that the award should be overturned because: (1) the arbitrator appointed by the 
Claimants was biased toward the Claimants; and (2) the arbitration board 
exceeded its lawful powers in granting an award that exceeded the lawful limits 
for damages to domestic sheep from mountain lions. The Claimants challenge the 
Commission's cause for the appeal and argue that no bias on the part of the 
arbitrator existed or was proven, and in any event, that any challenge as to his 
serving on the board was waived both expressly and impliedly. Further, the 
Claimants argue that the arbitration board did not exceed its lawful powers in 
granting the damages award.

[¶2.]     We affirm the district 
court's denial of the Commission's motion to vacate the 
award.

[¶3.]     In January 1987, the 
Claimants each submitted claims with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 
(Department) pursuant to W.S. 23-1-901(a) for damages caused by mountain lions 
killing their sheep.1 The Department refused to pay the 
claims as stated and offered instead partial payments for each of the damage 
claims. The Claimants requested review of the Department's decision before the 
Commission pursuant to W.S. 23-1-901(c). On April 27, 1987, the Commission 
offered to pay the Claimants more than the Department had originally offered, 
but a sum still substantially below the amounts claimed.

[¶4.]     In July 1987, the 
Claimants requested arbitration of their claims pursuant to W.S. 23-1-901(d).2 An arbitration board was appointed 
pursuant to W.S. 23-1-901(d). The Claimants appointed Barnett Brock, the 
Commission appointed Blair Klein, and Brock and Klein appointed Emerson Scott as 
board chairman. An evidentiary hearing was held on November 4-5, 1987. No record 
was made of the hearing; neither the parties nor the arbitration board had 
arranged to have a stenographer present. The parties, however, agreed to proceed 
with the hearing without a record being made.

[¶5.]     On November 13, 1987, 
the arbitration board issued a two-to-one decision in favor of the Claimants, 
requiring the Department to pay the full amount of the claims. Those finding in 
favor of the Claimants were arbitrators Brock and Scott. The Commission filed a 
Motion to Reconsider on November 30, 1987, which was denied by the arbitration 
board on December 8, 1987.

[¶6.]     The Commission then 
filed a Motion to vacate the Award of the Arbitration Board in the District 
Court of the Fourth Judicial District on December 21, 1987. In its motion, the 
Commission contended that: (1) there was evident partiality on the part of 
arbitrator Brock that prejudiced the rights of the Commission, W.S. 
1-36-114(a)(ii)3; (2) the board exceeded its power 
by awarding amounts in excess of the lawfully permitted amount, W.S. 
1-36-114(a)(iii); and (3) the board, over the objection of the Commission, 
improperly ruled that no record would be made of the hearing, which 
substantially prejudiced the rights of the Commission to bring its appeal. W.S. 
1-36-114(a)(iv). On the same date, the Commission also filed a Motion for 
Extension of Time to Prepare a Written Record. The district court granted this 
second motion. However, the Commission never prepared a record of the 
hearing.

[¶7.]     The Claimants filed a 
Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 1988, which was denied after a hearing on 
February 2, 1988. In its denial, the district court 
stated:

That this Court has 
appellate jurisdiction over this matter, and that in its appellate review the 
Court will review and consider only that record developed by the arbitration 
board.

The court 
further ordered:

C. The parties may file 
affidavits of the arbitrators concerning Appellant-State's allegation that the 
arbitration board refused to allow Appellant-State to have a record made of 
testimony at the hearing on November 4-5, 1987. * * *

D. The parties may submit 
offers of proof concerning witness testimony at the arbitration board hearing 
which will not become part of the record for judicial review * * 
*.

[¶8.]     Each of the arbitrators 
filed affidavits on March 2, 1988, stating that the arbitration board had not 
denied either party the right to have a transcript made of the hearing, and 
confirming that both parties had agreed to proceed without a record being made. 
Further, the district court granted the Commission permission to depose 
arbitrator Brock as to his bias or partiality. Despite the district court's 
interdiction as to additional offers of proof concerning witness testimony, in 
its brief to the district court, the Commission included the affidavits of 
several individuals that were not part of the record on appeal and referred to 
them repeatedly throughout its argument before that court and in its brief on 
appeal to this court.

[¶9.]     After a hearing on 
April 7, 1988, the district court upheld the decision of the arbitration board 
and denied the Commission's motion to vacate the award by order dated April 19, 
1988. The order stated:

1. That Appellant-State 
failed to prove that there was evident partiality by an arbitrator which 
prejudiced the rights of Appellant-State.

2. That Appellant-State 
failed to prove that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by awarding the 
amount of damages awarded. 

3. That Appellant-State 
failed to prove that the Arbitration Board ruled, against the wishes and over 
the objection of Appellant-State, that no record would be made of the 
arbitration hearing; and that Appellant-State failed to prove that the 
Arbitration Board made a ruling or otherwise conducted the hearing as to 
prejudice substantially the rights of Appellant-State.

[¶10.]  The Commission appealed to this court on 
May 4, 1988. The Claimants cross-appealed on May 16, 1988.4

[¶11.]  It is an appellant's responsibility to 
present a complete record on which to base a decision. Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1096 (Wyo. 1986). "[I]f the appellant makes no 
attempt to have the record settled, appeals based upon issues which would have 
been revealed by that record will not be considered." Sharp v. Sharp, 671 P.2d 317, 318 (Wyo. 
1983).

[¶12.]  The hearing before the arbitration board 
was held November 4-5, 1987. Neither the parties nor the board had arranged for 
a court reporter to be present; consequently, there is no transcript of the 
testimony. The Commission initially indicated an attempt to correct this 
deficiency by requesting additional time in which to prepare and submit a 
written statement of the proceedings, as permitted by W.R.A.P. 4.03. However, 
after being granted such time, the Commission failed to prepare and file the 
statement. Instead, at the end of the time granted, the Commission submitted 
affidavits of various parties on the issue of bias by arbitrator Brock. The 
district court ruled that these affidavits could not be considered part of the 
record on appeal absent a settled record.

[¶13.]  Without a transcript or a statement 
settling the record as to the hearing, we have nothing upon which to base a 
conclusion either that the arbitration board exceeded its powers or that Brock 
was an interested or biased arbitrator. This court cannot consider any matter 
upon which the record is silent. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Emerson, 578 P.2d 1351, 1354 (Wyo. 1987). The only evidence we have before 
us as to interest or bias are the affidavits of the other arbitrators indicating 
that arbitrator Brock did not act with evident partiality, and a letter from the 
Commission to the Claimants in response to their objection to the Commission's 
selection of arbitrator Klein. That letter states in pertinent 
part:

[¶14.]  We have made no complaint about 
petitioner's selection of Mr. Brock as their representative. * * 
*

* * * * * 
*

The Department does not 
challenge Mr. Brock's sincerity to perform a fair job.

Rather than 
constitute conclusive evidence of arbitrator Brock's bias or partiality toward 
the Claimants, this letter indicates the Commission's acceptance of arbitrator 
Brock as a fair and impartial arbiter. This evidence is hardly sufficient to 
prove bias or interest on the part of arbitrator Brock or that such bias 
prejudiced the Commission.

[¶15.]  In the absence of a record, this court 
indulges the presumption that the evidence presented at the hearing supported 
the judgment of the hearing body and warrants its affirmance. See Feaster, 721 P.2d  at 1101. Without a record we can only presume that arbitrator Brock was 
fair and impartial in his actions on the board and that the board acted within 
its legal authority in granting an award of damages to the 
Claimants.

[¶16.]  The Claimants request that we find that 
there was no reasonable cause for appeal and assess additional costs according 
to W.R.A.P. 10.05.5 We decline to assess these 
additional costs.

[¶17.]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 W.S. 23-1-901(a) 
reads:

Any landowner, lessee or 
agent whose property is being damaged by any of the big or trophy game animals 
or game birds of this state shall, not later than fifteen (15) days after the 
damage is discovered by the owner of the property or the representative of the 
owner, report the damage to the nearest game warden, damage control warden, 
supervisor or commission member.

2 W.S. 23-1-901(d) reads 
in pertinent part:

Within ninety (90) days 
after receiving notice of the decision of the commission, the claimant may in 
writing to the department call for arbitration. Within fifteen (15) days after 
the department receives the call for arbitration, the claimant and the 
department shall each appoint a disinterested arbitrator who is an elector 
residing in the county where the damage occurred and notify each other of the 
appointment. Within twenty (20) days after their appointment, the two (2) 
arbitrators shall appoint a third arbitrator possessing the same 
qualifications.

3 We are not convinced 
that the Commission has standing to challenge arbitrator Brock under W.S. 
1-36-114(a)(ii). Under this statute, the court shall vacate an award where 
"[t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral." Mr. 
Brock was not appointed as a neutral but rather was the designee of the 
Claimants. Perhaps the Commission's complaint was intended to be under W.S. 
23-1-901(d) which requires that the arbitrators appointed by the parties shall 
be disinterested. The matter of standing suggested here was not briefed nor 
argued by the parties; therefore, we will not address it.

4 The Claimants filed 
notice of appeal but apparently abandoned it. The Claimants' brief said nothing 
about this appeal nor was anything said at oral argument.

5 W.R.A.P. 10.05 
reads:

When, in a civil case, 
the judgment or final order is affirmed, appellee shall recover the cost for 
typewriting and reproducing his brief, such cost to be computed at the rate 
allowed by law for making the transcript of the evidence. If the court certifies 
that there was no reasonable cause for the appeal, there shall also be taxed as 
part of the costs in the case, a reasonable fee, to be fixed by the court, not 
less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five thousand dollars 
($5,000.00), to the counsel of the appellee, and to the appellee damages in such 
sum as may be reasonable, not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), unless 
the judgment, or final order directs the payment of money, and execution thereof 
was stayed, when in lieu of such penalty, it shall bear additional interest at a 
rate not exceeding five percent (5%) per annum, for the time for which it was 
stayed, to be ascertained and awarded by the court.