Court Opinion

ID: 9895731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:15:01.633745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.375061
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                            2023 WY 108

                                                                 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                                          November 8, 2023

  TODD MCINERNEY,

  Appellant
  (Defendant),

  v.                                                                 S-23-0099

  VERONICA KRAMER,

  Appellee
  (Plaintiff).

                      Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County
                        The Honorable James Michael Causey, Judge

Representing Appellant:
      Corrie Lynn Lamb, Shepherd Law, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee:
      Codi D. Henderson and Catherine M. Young, Davis & Cannon, LLP, Sheridan,
      Wyoming.

Before KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ., and BLUEMEL, D.J.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are
requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the
permanent volume.
GRAY, Justice.

[¶1] Veronica Kramer (Wife) and Todd McInerney (Husband) divorced. In dividing the
parties’ marital assets, the district court ordered Wife to make a lump sum equalization
payment to Husband. Wife filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to
W.R.C.P. 59, asking that she be allowed to make the equalization payment in installments.
Without a hearing, the district court granted her motion. Husband appeals. Due to
deficiencies in the appeal, we summarily affirm.

                                         ISSUES

[¶2]   Husband offers two issues, which we rephrase:

              1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied
                 Husband’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond?

              2. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it granted
                 Wife’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to
                 W.R.C.P. 59?

[¶3] Wife raises a preliminary issue relating to Husband’s failure to comply with the
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and requests we exercise our discretion under
W.R.A.P. 1.03 and summarily affirm.

                                         FACTS

[¶4] The parties married in 1997. During their marriage they had two children who,
having reached the age of majority, are not at issue here. Wife, a physical therapist, is a
partner in North Platte Physical Therapy. During the marriage, Husband acted as a stay-
at-home father and operated the family ranch. Prior to the marriage, Husband injured his
back and has not held outside employment since the injury.

[¶5] Wife filed for divorce in December 2020. After a bench trial, the district court
entered a Decree of Divorce. As part of the division of marital assets, Wife was ordered to
make a lump sum equalization payment to Husband of $1,063,000. This payment was
subject to statutory interest of 10% per annum, accruing from the date of the decree.

[¶6] On November 1, 2022, Wife timely filed and served a Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment, Pursuant to W.R.C.P. 59, where she requested a payment plan without interest
for the equalization payment. She argued that her portion of the marital estate did not

                                            1
contain sufficient liquidity to make a large, one-time payment. 1 On November 29, 2022,
Husband filed his response to Wife’s motion. His response was served 28 days after service
of Wife’s Rule 59 motion and was untimely. See W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2) & (d) (allowing 20 days
to respond, plus 3 days for mailing). On December 1, 2022, Husband filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond asserting he was not properly served with Wife’s motion.

[¶7] On February 13, 2023, the district court, without a hearing, denied Husband’s
motion for an extension of time and granted Wife’s motion to amend. The district court
ordered:

                [Wife] shall make payments of $150,000 per year to [Husband]
                until the equalization payment is paid in full. This will consist
                of two yearly payments—$75,000 at the end of January and
                another $75,000 at the end of July. The 10% interest rate set
                forth in paragraph 31 of the Decree of Divorce is suspended so
                long as [Wife] makes these payments.

[¶8]    Husband appeals.

                                             DISCUSSION

[¶9] The decision whether to dismiss an appeal or summarily affirm a lower court’s
decision based upon the filing of a deficient brief or the failure to present cogent arguments
is within the discretion of this Court. See W.R.A.P. 1.03; In Int. of BFW, 2017 WY 64,
¶ 5, 395 P.3d 184, 185 (Wyo. 2017). We apply “stringent standards . . . to formal pleadings
drafted by attorneys.” Hodson v. Sturgeon, 2017 WY 150, ¶ 3, 406 P.3d 1264, 1265 (Wyo.
2017) (quoting Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo. 2002)); see also
Rammell v. Mountainaire Animal Clinic, P.C., 2019 WY 53, ¶ 14, 442 P.3d 41, 46 (Wyo.
2019) (contrasting leniency provided to pro se litigants with “stringent standards applied
to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys” (quoting Young, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d at 297)). When a
brief contains no cogent argument or pertinent authority, we consistently have refused to
consider the appeal, whether the brief is by a litigant pro se or is filed by counsel. See, e.g.,
Corrigan v. Vig, 2020 WY 148, ¶ 7, 477 P.3d 87, 89 (Wyo. 2020) (summarily affirmed
when pro se appellant failed to comply with appellate rules and brief contained no cogent
argument); Harrison v. State, 2020 WY 43, ¶¶ 2–3, 460 P.3d 260, 261 (Wyo. 2020)
(summarily affirming district court’s order denying Mr. Harrison’s motion to enforce his
claimed plea agreement because his pro se brief failed to comply with our appellate rules
and contained no cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority); Hamburg v. Heilbrun,
889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo. 1995).

1
 Wife also requested credit for payments she had made following trial. On November 2, 2022, the district
court granted this request, reducing the equalization payment to $997,008.02. This ruling is not at issue
here.

                                                   2
[¶10] W.R.A.P. 7.01 sets forth the requirements for an appellant’s brief:

                   The brief of appellant shall contain under appropriate
             headings and in the order indicated:

                    (a)    A title page which must include:

                           (1)    The appellate court caption and appellate
                           court case number;

                           (2)     Identification of party filing the brief; and

                           (3)    The name(s), address(es) and telephone
                           number(s) of the attorney(s) or pro se party(ies)
                           preparing the brief. Members of the Wyoming
                           Bar shall include their Wyoming Bar number.

                    (b)    A table of contents, with page references;

                    (c)     A table of cases alphabetically arranged (in one
                    list or by jurisdiction), statutes and other authorities
                    cited, with references to the pages where they appear;

                    (d)     A statement of jurisdiction in the appellate court.
                    The statement shall include a concise statement of the
                    facts material to the finality of an order being appealed,
                    the timeliness of the appeal, any other facts effecting
                    jurisdiction and a reference to the provisions of statute,
                    rule or case law on which jurisdiction rests;

                    (e)    A statement of the issues presented for review;

                    (f)     A statement of the case, presented in any
                    efficient order, identifying the nature of the case, setting
                    out the facts relevant to the issues presented for review,
                    describing the relevant procedural history, and
                    identifying the rulings presented for review, with
                    citations to page numbers in the designated record on
                    appeal as paginated in accordance with Rule 3.05(h).
                    Citations to the designated record shall not contain
                    volume numbers;

                                             3
                            (g)  An argument (which may be preceded by a
                            summary) setting forth:

                                    (1)    Appellant’s contentions with respect to
                                    the issues presented and the reasons therefor,
                                    with citations to the authorities, statutes and
                                    pages of the designated record on appeal relied
                                    on; and

                                    (2)     For each issue, a concise statement of the
                                    applicable standard of review (which may appear
                                    in the discussion of the issue or under a separate
                                    heading placed before the discussion of the
                                    issues);

                            (h)   A short conclusion stating the precise relief
                            sought;

                            (i)   The signature(s) of counsel or pro se party(ies)
                            submitting the brief;

                            (j)     A certificate of service; and

                            (k)     An appendix, which shall contain:

                                    (1)   copy of the judgment or final order
                                    appealed from;

                                    (2)    the trial court’s decision letter or other
                                    written and/or oral reasons for judgment, if any;
                                    and

                                    (3)    the statement of costs required by rule
                                    10.01.

W.R.A.P. 7.01.

[¶11] Husband’s brief does not comply with Rule 7.01—the Table of Contents contains
page references for only three of ten listed items, 2 the Table of Authorities is blank, the
Statement of Jurisdiction lacks “reference to the provisions of statute, rule or case law on
which jurisdiction rests,” and the date of service is listed as June 19, 2021, two years prior

2
    Two of the page references refer to pages that do not exist in the brief.

                                                        4
to the date the brief was filed. 3 A party who fails to follow the requirements of Rule 7.01
risks summary affirmance on appeal. See Finch v. Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24, ¶¶ 2–3, 130
P.3d 437, 437–38 (Wyo. 2006); Cor v. Sinclair Servs. Co., 2017 WY 116, ¶ 6, 402 P.3d
992, 994 (Wyo. 2017) (“[The] requirements [of Rule 7.01] are not meaningless obstacles
to a review by this [C]ourt of a given case but rather are necessary to drafting an organized,
thoughtful, and analytical opinion on well defined issues.” (quoting In re KD, 2001 WY
61, ¶ 9, 26 P.3d 1035, 1036–37 (Wyo. 2001))).

[¶12] In addition to the procedural infirmities, the issues Husband raises in the brief are
not developed by cogent argument or supported by legal authority. For his first issue,
Husband asserts the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an
extension of time to respond to Wife’s Rule 59 motion, but offers no argument or authority
in support of his assertion.

[¶13] For his second issue, Husband argues the district court erred when it granted Wife’s
Rule 59 motion. He cites only one case—Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2015 WY 120, 357 P.3d
1100 (Wyo. 2015) which is inapposite to his claim. At issue in Sinclair was the district
court’s authority to suspend interest on equalization payments in a divorce decree. Sinclair,
¶ 9, 357 P.3d at 1102–03. We acknowledged that “[t]here is no question in this context
that the district court had broad discretion to fashion a fair division of the marital property.”
Id. ¶ 14, 357 P.3d at 1104 (citations omitted). Husband does not connect the Sinclair
holding to the Rule 59 motion at issue in this appeal and offers no other argument or
authority.

[¶14] Because Husband’s brief is deficient in many respects and lacks cogent argument,
we summarily affirm. See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10, 476 P.3d 657, 659–
60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent
argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103, ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997
(Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute
and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51,
¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of
summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent
authoritative citation.”); BFW, ¶ 6, 395 P.3d at 185 (summarily affirming where there was
“no cogent argument supported by legal authority”); see also In Int. of FP, 2021 WY 77,
¶¶ 23–25, 488 P.3d 943, 948–49 (Wyo. 2021) (summarily affirming because appellant’s
brief failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01 and appellant misstated the record); Cor, ¶ 6,
402 P.3d at 994 (summarily affirming where brief was “deficient in many respects”); Berg
v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co., 2012 WY 42, ¶¶ 12–13, 272 P.3d 963, 966 (Wyo. 2012)
(summarily affirming appeal when brief was deficient).

3
  The brief contains few citations to the record, and for the most part, those are improperly cited, referring
to the pages in the pleadings and not record pages.

                                                      5
                                   CONCLUSION

[¶15] We summarily affirm the district court’s order granting Wife’s motion to alter or
amend judgment pursuant to W.R.C.P. 59. We decline to impose sanctions under
W.R.A.P. 10.05.

                                          6