Opinion ID: 1135648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: leave to amend pleadings

Text: The general rule, concerning whether amendment of pleadings after remand is permissible, is as follows: Cases bearing on the amendment of pleadings after remand, where no leave or direction has been granted by the appellate court, generally turn on the question of the power of the lower court,    it being held that    the question as to whether it shall be allowed in a particular case is committed primarily to the discretion of the lower court, with the exercise of which the appellate court will not interfere, except in the case where there has been a clear abuse of discretion   . 5B C.J.S. supra § 1969(1) (citations omitted). Our case law is in accord with the general rule. Mealey v. City of Laramie, 485 P.2d 1019, 1020 (Wyo.1971). In Mealey, we held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings. Mealey, 485 P.2d at 1020. In that case, the plaintiff, after remand from this court on a reversal of summary judgment, attempted to amend her pleadings to raise a new issue. In affirming the trial court's denial of leave to amend we said: Whether or not the proposed amendment should have been allowed or rejected was a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court and unless such discretion was abused, its ruling will not be set aside. Mealy, at 1020. In this case, we cannot say that the district court's action, permitting leave to all parties to amend the pleadings, was an abuse of discretion or was inconsistent with our opinion in BBC I. After our opinion in BBC I, reversing the termination of parental rights and adoption, most of the original pleadings were no longer applicable. The hearing, which resulted in the original judgment of adoption and termination of BDR's parental rights, was grounded in BDR's petition for habeas corpus and BEB's and PJB's petition for adoption. If the district court had proceeded, after remand, based solely on the old pleadings, the precise issues would have been difficult to discern. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion.