Opinion ID: 2627401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Separate Oral Contract

Text: [¶ 22] Ms. Belden contends that the district court erred when it concluded that no independent oral contract between her and Mr. Thorkildsen existed. The party seeking to establish the existence of the oral contract bears the burden of proof. In re Estate of Bell, 726 P.2d 71, 75 (Wyo.1986). `Whether an oral contract exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.' Meima v. Broemmel, 2005 WY 87, ¶ 58, 117 P.3d 429, 448 (Wyo.2005) (quoting Fowler v. Fowler, 933 P.2d 502, 504 (Wyo. 1997)). We review findings of fact using a clearly erroneous standard. [4] Belden, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d at 323. This Court does not reweigh evidence. We sustain a trial court's findings and judgment on questions of fact unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. In making such a determination, we examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, without considering evidence of the other party which conflicts. 71 Const. v. Wesco Elec., Inc., 924 P.2d 991, 993 (Wyo.1996). [¶ 23] The district court found as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Margot Belden contends that beyond the Promissory Note signed by Belden and Thorkildsen as partners of [Fish Creek Interiors and Gifts], she and John Thorkildsen also entered into an oral agreement. According to Belden, the oral agreement provided that [the partnership] would make the payments and John would repay that debt or those payments with both bonuses and commissions from his earnings at [the partnership]. Thorkildsen, on the other hand, testified that he and Belden orally agreed that [the partnership] would make the monthly payments for partnership debt on [Note 1] to the Bank of Jackson Hole; and, if Thorkildsen were to receive bonuses or commissions, he had the option to pay those commissions and bonuses to the Bank of Jackson Hole toward the payment of [Note 1]. . . . 2. The Court finds no credible evidence to support the fact that John Thorkildsen was to be liable for [Note 2] on account of the oral agreement described above. This finding is based upon the following evidence and inferences: a. There is nothing in the LLC loan documentation or other accompanying writings referencing, indicating, or even suggesting that the $151,781 partnership loan paid by the LLC was to be repaid to the LLC by John Thorkildsen. The oral agreement pertained to the payment of [Note 1]. There is no evidence of a new oral or written agreement that the debt would be paid by John Thorkildsen to the LLC. That debt was paid by the LLC according to the new note. The face of [Note 2] recites Borrowers agree that principal will be reduced to a minimum of $70,000 by October 27, 2001 plus accrued interest; remaining balance will then be reamortized for monthly payments using the original maturity date. The whole structure of the repayment of [Note 2] was different from that under [Note 1], and the testimony regarding the oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant. b. The LLC paid all of the payments for the debt.... The parties pooled their assets and liabilities into a new company. No mention is made that [any] of them, including John Thorkildsen, would shoulder responsibility for particular debts; or, that [any] of them would retain the ownership to certain assets that had been transferred to the LLC. c. The plaintiff altered the original [Note 2], by handwriting on it that it is the John Thorkildsen Note, when such a notation was absent from the original note in the bank's file. She also attached the altered note to her complaint herein, in order to lend credence to her argument that it was the same debt as the partnership note which had been paid. The Court looks on such actions as disfavoring the credibility of Ms. Belden's uncorroborated testimony herein. (Footnotes omitted.) [¶ 24] The district court's findings are amply supported by the record. The only testimony supporting Appellants' version of the agreement is Ms. Belden's, as follows: Q. [by Plaintiffs' counsel] Was there any understanding as to whether or not Mr. Thorkildsen would be personally responsible for repayment of [Note 1]? A. Yes. We had an agreement that Fish Creek Interiors and Gifts would make the payments and John would repay that debt or those payments with both bonuses and commissions from his earnings from the business. Q. Okay. A. Over and above his salary.... Initially, we note we will not interfere with the district court's credibility determinations. The court specifically found Ms. Belden's credibility to be questionable. In addition, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court correctly stated that there is no evidence that Mr. Thorkildsen agreed to reimburse the LLC or Ms. Belden for amounts they paid toward Note 2. The only promise Mr. Thorkildsen made, according to Ms. Belden, was that he would repay the partnership for amounts it paid on Note 1. Appellants do not contend that the partnership should be reimbursed. They contend only that Ms. Belden and the LLC should be reimbursed. We find no clear error in the district court's conclusion that Appellants failed to prove the existence of the oral contract. [¶ 25] Affirmed.