Opinion ID: 6534112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clearly Erroneous Finding of Fact

Text: [¶24] We review a district court acting in its appellate capacity under the authority of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-2-119 (LexisNexis 2017), which directs this Court to set the standards and extent of our review. Neither the rules of appellate procedure nor our caselaw addresses whether we should review factual findings of the district court under these circumstances and, if so, our level of deference. Ordinarily, the review in the higher appellate court of the actions of the intermediate appellate court is limited to errors of law only. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 985 (June 2018 update). Nonetheless, we recognize that some issues involve mixed questions of law and fact; and, following a bench trial, we generally do not accept factual findings from the lower court that are clearly erroneous. E.g. , Gould v. Ochsner , 2015 WY 101 , ¶ 16, 354 P.3d 965 , 971 (Wyo. 2015). In civil cases, the United States Supreme Court follows the two court rule, by which the Court will not review findings of fact concurred in by two courts below in the absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error. 20 Charles A. Wright and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Deskbook § 115 (April 2018 update); see also Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. , v. Linde Air Products Co. , 336 U.S. 271 , 275, 69 S.Ct. 535 , 538, 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949). Likewise, we will not accept, without scrutiny, the findings of a district court that contradict the trial court and, if clearly erroneous in light of the record, we will disregard the findings. [¶25] Here, the two courts below did not concur, and the record does not support the district court's conclusion that the circuit court erred. Specifically, the circuit court found that [Burton's] agent did not appear with a title at closing, and [Burton] could not provide a title at closing as required by the contract. Nevertheless, the district court found that whether or not Burton tendered a ... title, remains factually unknown. Burton's testimony refutes the district court's findings: Q. [Mr. Larson's counsel] Okay. So, at any of these closings that you testified under Direct, under questioning from your attorney, at any of these closings did you bring a Wyoming Title? A. [Mr. Larson] No. .... Q. So, essentially we can agree that in none of these proposed closings did you bring a Wyoming Title. A. On a new home, no. .... Q. Okay. And, I guess at the risk of repeating myself, you never offered Mr. Larson any written or verbal communication to provide him with a Wyoming Title. A. No. Although Burton rescheduled the closing for January 15, he remained unwilling to deliver a Wyoming title. In preparation for the rescheduled closing, he directed the escrow officer to create a new settlement sheet showing an additional $1,806 in sales tax due from Mr. Larson, based on his planned delivery of an MCO. The record establishes that Burton neither delivered nor intended to deliver a Wyoming title before January 15. Thus, we set aside the district court's incompatible finding.