Opinion ID: 2538918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was Small a Promoter Who Can Be Held Liable Personally

Text: [¶ 7] The lease Kurtenbach and Small executed on June 1, 2000, specified that the agreement was between Gasstop and Seatwo and each signed the lease as representatives of those entities. Gasstop contends that Small was a promoter at that point in time because Seatwo did not come into being until August 17, 2000. This issue was not called to the attention of the district court at the proceedings below, and the district court made no findings or rulings in that regard. We have held: This Court does not review issues that were not properly developed below. We have stated that `[w]e strongly adhere to the rule forbidding us to consider for the first time on appeal issues that were neither raised in, nor argued to, the trial court, except for those issues which are jurisdictional or are fundamental in nature.' Hronek v. St. Joseph's Children's Home, 866 P.2d 1305, 1309 (Wyo.1994) (quoting Bredthauer v. TSP, 864 P.2d 442, 446-47 (Wyo.1993) and Oatts v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 111 (Wyo.1991)). `We follow this rule because it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.' Hronek, 866 P.2d at 1309 (quoting Bredthauer, 864 P.2d at 446-47 and Oatts, 821 P.2d at 111); see also 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 690 (1995). We of course must not judge the matter of abuse of discretion on the basis of showings made to us on appeal. We must judge on the basis of showings made to the trial court. . . . Holly Sugar Corp. v. Perez, 508 P.2d 595, 599 (Wyo.1973). We have articulated and followed this principle on numerous occasions [Citations omitted.]. Yates v. Yates, 2003 WY 161, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 184 (Wyo.2003). Amoco does not contend that this issue is either jurisdictional or fundamental. This Court does not consider the imposition of penalties under the circumstances of this case to be so fundamental as to require our review when Amoco failed to present its current argument against the imposition of such penalties before the Board. Amoco Production Co. v. Department of Revenue, State of Wyo., 2004 WY 89, ¶ 53, 94 P.3d 430, 449 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 8] We will apply that rule here because the issue was not raised below. Our decision to do so is fortified by the testimony of Messrs. Kurtenbach and Small that described the course of dealings between them and their business entities. In context, the discrepancy complained of could not have served to prejudice Kurtenbach or Gasstop, nor has any suggestion been made by Gasstop that a jurisdictional or fundamental error is in play here.