Court Opinion

ID: 9908412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 17:12:26.93456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:10.484192
License: Public Domain

THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                            2023 WY 119

                                                                   OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                                          December 8, 2023
 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
 ELLEN M. SLATER a/k/a ELLEN
 MILDRED SLATER, deceased:

 MIKE SLATER,

 Appellant
 (Respondent),
                                                                   S-23-0122
 v.

 PATRICK BRUCE SLATER and
 JACQUELINE KAY SLATER, Personal
 Co-Representatives
 of the Estate of Ellen M. Slater,

 Appellees
 (Petitioners).
                         Appeal from the District Court of Park County
                         The Honorable Bobbi Dean Overfield, Judge
Representing Appellant:
      Mike Slater, pro se.
Representing Appellee:
      David M. Hill and Jennifer Jensen of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh, and Jardine,
      P.C., Cody, Wyoming.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

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.
FENN, Justice.

[¶1] Stephen Michael “Mike” Slater (Appellant) appeals the district court’s order
denying his objections to the final report and its order distributing his mother’s estate. He
claims he was not given proper notice of the probate action, and his siblings, Patrick and
Jacqueline Slater (Appellees), violated their duties as co-personal representatives. Finding
Appellant failed to comply with Rule 7.01 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure,
we summarily affirm.

                                                 FACTS

[¶2] Ellen and Richard Slater were the parents of three children: Stephen Michael
“Mike” Slater; Patrick Bruce Slater; and Jacqueline Kay Slater.1 Richard and Appellant
were business partners at one time, but their partnership ended in approximately 1974–
1975. Richard and Ellen subsequently moved to Powell, Wyoming. Richard passed away
in February 2001.

[¶3] After Richard’s passing, Appellant helped Ellen pay the mortgage on her property
for several years. In the years prior to her death, Ellen made numerous writings describing
her financial dealings with Appellant, and she informed Appellees she repaid any and all
debts she allegedly owed Appellant. Ellen executed a will in April 2013. Ellen appointed
Appellees to serve as the co-personal representatives of her estate. Ellen specifically
bequeathed Appellant $100, and “intentionally excluded” him from all other gifts,
bequests, or devises.

[¶4] In June 2017, Appellant attempted to retrieve certain tools and personal property he
claimed to own from Ellen’s property. However, at Ellen’s request, the Park County
Sheriff’s office contacted him and verbally warned him of criminal trespass. The report
from this incident indicates Ellen told the deputies all the tools remaining on her property
had belonged to her and her late husband Richard. In October 2018, Ellen wrote a note to
Appellees saying she did not owe Appellant “one penny.”

[¶5] Ellen passed away in Park County on September 17, 2021. Appellees filed a petition
to probate Ellen’s will on May 19, 2022, and her will was admitted to probate on May 23,
2022. On June 1, 2022, Appellees sent Appellant a copy of the petition and a notice of
probate by first class mail to his last known address in Marshalltown, Iowa. Appellees also
published notice of the probate in the Cody Enterprise for three consecutive weeks
beginning June 9, 2022.

1
 Because all the parties have the same last name, we will refer to Ellen and Richard by their first names for
clarity.

                                                     1
[¶6] Appellees filed a final accounting and petition for distribution in early November
2022. The district court set a hearing on the petition for distribution for December 14,
2022, and required objections to that petition to be filed no later than December 12, 2022.
Appellant filed an objection and a request to continue the hearing on December 12, 2022,
claiming he had personal property stored on his mother’s real property and he had not been
given notice of the probate action or an opportunity to retrieve that property.

[¶7] The district court held a hearing on January 18, 2023. Appellant again argued he
had not received proper notice of the probate, and he demanded an accounting of various
tools and vehicles. The district court took the matter under advisement. Following the
hearing, Appellant filed numerous motions, including a motion to set aside the will, a
motion to compel Appellees to provide a list of the disposition of certain property, and
motions to remove the co-personal representatives.

[¶8] The district court found Appellees satisfied the statutory requirements for notice
when they sent Appellant notice of the probate by first class mail to his last known address,
which was the same address where Appellant admittedly received notice of the settings for
the December 2022 and January 2023 hearings. Although Appellant’s attempt to set aside
the will was untimely, the district court ultimately considered the claim and found it to be
without merit. The district court considered the merits of Appellant’s creditor’s claim,
concluded there was no proof the property, which had been left at Ellen’s home in 1976,
was still there, and found the claim was untimely and forever barred. The district court
denied Appellant’s objections and subsequently entered a final decree of distribution
ordering Appellees to distribute the estate as set forth in the petition for distribution. This
timely appeal followed.

                                       DISCUSSION

[¶9] Although Appellees’ brief identifies four issues and sets forth arguments addressing
the merits of Appellant’s claims, they also ask this Court to dismiss this appeal due to
Appellant’s failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.

[¶10] Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of issues for review,
and a statement of the case with citations to the record. In addition, although he cites to
one case and three statutes, none of those authorities are applicable to this matter.
Appellant’s “brief” is a six-page document detailing events outside this matter, generally
alleging wrongdoing by Appellees, and claiming he never received the notice of probate
that was mailed to his address in Iowa. Appellant’s brief does not comply with Rule 7.01
of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure (W.R.A.P.). “Failure to comply with
W.R.A.P. 7.01 is grounds ‘for such action as we deem appropriate, including but not
limited to: refusal to consider the appellant’s contentions and affirmance.” Anderle v. State,
2022 WY 161, ¶ 18, 522 P.3d 151, 154 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting W.R.A.P. 1.03(a)). We have
discretion to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate

                                              2
procedure. Id. (citing Cor v. Sinclair Servs. Co., 2017 WY 116, ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 992, 994
(Wyo. 2017)). “While some leniency is afforded to a pro se litigant, we refuse to consider
cases when ‘a brief fails to present a valid contention supported by cogent argument or
pertinent authority.’” Matter of Estate of Dornblaser, 2022 WY 118, ¶ 3, 517 P.3d 1121,
1122 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Interest of Bass, 2020 WY 27, ¶ 7, 458 P.3d 857, 859 (Wyo.
2020)); see also Harrison v State, 2020 WY 43, ¶ 3, 460 P.3d 260, 261 (Wyo. 2020)
(summarily affirming for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure).
Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure in several essential
respects. We therefore summarily affirm the district court’s orders denying Appellant’s
objections and approving the final report and decree of distribution.

[¶11] Appellees request an award of attorney’s fees and costs under W.R.A.P. 10.05. We
award costs as provided under W.R.A.P. 10.05(a), but we decline to assess attorney’s fees
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05(b).

[¶12] Affirmed.

                                             3