Opinion ID: 2561825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it granted, in part, Burton's motion in limine?

Text: [¶18] The purpose of a motion in limine is to obtain the court's pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Reichert v. Phipps , 2004 WY 7, ¶ 4 n.1, 84 P.3d 353, 355 n.1 (Wyo. 2004). As with other evidentiary decisions, the question of whether or not to grant a motion in limine is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Capshaw v. WERCS , 2001 WY 68, ¶ 5, 28 P.3d 855, 857 (Wyo. 2001). Evidence that is not relevant may be found inadmissible via a motion in limine. Id. Such decisions are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. . . . Determining whether the trial court abused its discretion involves the consideration of whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. . . . A trial court's evidentiary rulings `are entitled to considerable deference,' and will not be reversed on appeal so long as `there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling. . . .' Armstrong v. Hrabal , 2004 WY 39, ¶ 10, 87 P.3d 1226, 1230 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Dysthe v. State , 2003 WY 20, ¶ 16, 63 P.3d 875, 883 (Wyo. 2003). The burden is upon the person losing the motion to establish an abuse of discretion. Brown v. State , 2005 WY 37, ¶ 12, 109 P.3d 52, 56 (Wyo. 2005). [¶19] Burton's motion in limine sought to prevent the admission of any evidence either of the monetary value of Three Way's performance, or any alleged promise by Burton to subdivide and improve the 7.81 acre parcel. The motion was heard on the first day of trial, with the first request being denied, and the second granted. The motion hearing was not reported and nothing in the record tells us the reasons for the court's rulings. It may be presumed, however, that the jury was allowed to determine the monetary value of Three Way's services in case the district court decided to award unjust enrichment damages. Further, it may be presumed that evidence of the possible subdivision and improvement of the 7.81 acre parcel was found inadmissible because, if damages were limited to specific performance of the contract, those damages would be limited to conveyance of the 7.81 acre parcel as is. [¶20] We have already concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Three Way's motion for leave to amend its complaint. Consequently, the only trial issues were breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The contract did not provide for the 7.81 acre parcel to be subdivided and improved, so that evidence was not relevant to the contract issue. Similarly, because the unjust enrichment damages were measured by the value of Three Way's services, such evidence was not relevant to that issue. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Burton's motion in limine in that regard.