Opinion ID: 2516866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: w.r.c.p. 11

Text: [¶ 20] Ms. Welch and Mr. Hauser argue that Mr. Horn's contentions are moot because, regardless of the validity of the contempt order, Mr. Horn was properly sanctioned for making frivolous representations for improper purposes in violation of W.R.C.P. 11. As previously set forth in this opinion, the trial court in its decision letter concluded there was no basis for Mr. Horn's assertions that the property was returned to Ms. Welch and Mr. Hauser. The trial court further concluded Mr. Horn's assertions to that effect were frivolous; without proper purpose; and done to harass, delay, or increase the cost of litigation. [¶ 21] The decision letter cites W.R.C.P. 11. The contempt order, however, does not. The rule authorizes the court to impose sanctions, after notice and an opportunity to respond, against the offending attorney or party upon a determination the rule has been violated. The rule provides two procedures for initiating proceedings for sanctions for filing frivolous claims: (c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (1) How Initiated. (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.... (B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto. W.R.C.P. 11(c)(1). [¶ 22] Neither of these procedures was utilized in the present case. The petition filed by Ms. Welch and Mr. Hauser was styled Petition for Rule to Show Cause and makes no reference to W.R.C.P. 11. Thus, the petition does not comply with W.R.C.P. 11(c)(1)(A), which requires a separate W.R.C.P. 11 motion describing the specific conduct alleged to violate the rule. There further is no indication in the record that Ms. Welch and Mr. Hauser complied with the service requirements of W.R.C.P. 11(c)(1)(A) before filing their petition to enable Mr. Horn and his clients to withdraw the challenged assertions. The record likewise contains no indication of compliance with W.R.C.P. 11(c)(1)(B) the trial court did not enter an order describing the specific conduct at issue and directing Mr. Horn to show cause why he had not violated W.R.C.P. 11. Under these circumstances, the strict procedural requirements of W.R.C.P. 11 were not met. Caldwell, 2001 WY 106, ¶ 12, 33 P.3d 1138. Therefore, the sanctions imposed against Mr. Horn are not sustainable under W.R.C.P. 11. [¶ 23] In their final issue, Ms. Welch and Mr. Hauser ask this court to certify there is no reasonable cause for this appeal and award sanctions against Mr. Horn. Our determination that the sanctions imposed by the trial court cannot be upheld precludes any conclusion that no reasonable cause existed for the appeal. The request is denied.