Opinion ID: 2514801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to Meet Burden of Proof

Text: [¶ 19] In denying Appellants attorneys' fees in the piercing action, the trial court held: 5. Plaintiffs improperly suggested that if the Court would like to review the statements without the descriptions redacted they would submit them for in-camera inspection. This suggestion amounts to a request that the Court first determine whether Plaintiffs met their burden of proof, and then give the Plaintiffs a second chance to meet the burden of proof. 6. The Wyoming Supreme Court has specifically rejected such attempts to prove reasonable attorney fees after once failing to do so. (I)f a party has had an opportunity to present proof of attorney fees to the trial court, and they fail to do so, the award will be summarily reversed on appeal with no remand. A party will not be allowed `another bite of the apple' in order to prove an element of their claim. Pekas v. Thompson, [903 P.2d 532, 537 (Wyo. 1995)]. [¶ 20] Appellants argue the trial court discounted the circumstances surrounding the manner of submission of the attorneys' fees and as such the trial court abused its discretion when it determined Appellants were seeking a second chance to meet their burden of proof. In other words, Appellants claim equities favor them. In support of this argument, Appellants note that in the underlying action, they submitted redacted statements, just as they did in the piercing action, and were awarded attorneys' fees. They also argue that the redaction would not have been necessary if Dallas and Arla Johnson had not tried to evade paying the original judgment. This Court disagrees. [¶ 21] While a trial court is granted broad discretion to determine the amount of an award of attorneys' fees, Wyoming case law is clear on this point. Once a party is given an opportunity to present sufficient evidence of attorneys' fees and fails to do so, the party will not be given another chance. Pekas v. Thompson, 903 P.2d 532, 537 (Wyo. 1995). Appellants had an opportunity to present proof of attorneys' fees to the trial court. Rather than doing so in a sufficient manner, Appellants chose to present deficient support and then placed the burden on the trial court to request further proof. Appellants could have reworded the task descriptions on the billing statements in such a manner that attorney-client privilege would not be waived rather than submitting redacted statements. [¶ 22] A remand to allow additional proof on attorney fees will be allowed only in those instances where a party was denied an opportunity to make proof in the proceeding below. Pekas, 903 P.2d at 537 (emphasis added). A remand in this situation is not allowable as Appellants had their opportunity to present proof and failed to do so.