Dewey Family Trust v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE …, 98-209.

• Decision Date: 05 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-209.,98-209.
• Citation: 3 P.3d 833
• Parties: DEWEY FAMILY TRUST, John C. Dewey and Elizabeth A. Dewey, Co-Trustees; and John C. Dewey and Elizabeth A. Dewey, as individuals, Appellants (Defendants), v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

3 P.3d 833

DEWEY FAMILY TRUST, John C. Dewey and Elizabeth A. Dewey, Co-Trustees; and John C. Dewey and Elizabeth A. Dewey, as individuals, Appellants (Defendants), v. MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 98-209.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 5, 2000.

Representing Appellants: John C. Dewey, Pro Se, and Elizabeth A. Dewey, Pro Se.

Representing Appellee: Rebecca A. Lewis of Lewis & Hunt, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and TAYLOR,¹ JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

In the district court, the only issue in this case was whether coverage was available to the Dewey Family Trust, and John C. Dewey and Elizabeth Dewey, as co-trustees and as individuals (the Deweys) under a policy issued by Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Mountain West). The Deweys were defendants in an action by the sellers under a contract for the sale of real estate, who sought damages for breach of contract, specific performance, and injunctive relief to protect livestock that were leased by the Deweys in connection with the land contract. There was an allegation of damage to property, but the district court determined that coverage was excluded under the policy because the property was in the possession of the Deweys. The district court, after reviewing the policy and comparing it to the allegations in the Complaint and Amended Complaint that had been filed by the sellers, granted summary judgment to Mountain West.

The primary issues presented in this Court arise out of the Deweys' failure to meet, even minimally, the requirements found in W.R.A.P. 7.01, and their failure to present cogent argument and pertinent authority. John C. Dewey appears pro se, and as the representative of his wife, Elizabeth Dewey, and the Dewey Family Trust (collectively Dewey).² As a sanction under W.R.A.P. 1.03, we affirm the Order Granting Summary Judgment, entered on September 4, 1997; the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, entered on April 16, 1998; the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, entered on April 16, 1998; the Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, entered on April 16, 1998; and the Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Continuance, entered on April 16, 1998, from all of which the Deweys endeavored to appeal. In addition, since this Court cannot certify that there was a reasonable cause for this appeal, we assess sanctions in the form of reasonable fees for appellee's counsel pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.

We are tempted to omit the Deweys's Statement of Issues for Review, which takes up four pages of their brief, because those issues were not addressed in the brief nor supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority. The Deweys' contentions demonstrate nothing more than dissatisfaction that the district court granted summary judgment to Mountain West instead of them. As recited, they obviously pertain more to the underlying litigation than to the declaratory judgment action brought to settle the issue of policy coverage. We conclude, however, that it is appropriate to recite the issues presented by the Deweys in the Brief, filed by John C. Dewey on their behalf because the issues that are recited are illustrative of our premise for deciding this case. They read:

1. We believe the Court erred in granting a summary Judgment based on a Conditional Offer that never matured. None of the conditions outlined in the offer were complied with. By Wentland and the Defendant claimed offer was voided by offer Article 4E and Wyoming Real Estate Rules and Regulations, Chapter 2, 9c(iii), (x), (xvi). Defendant withdrew offer September 17, 1995. We believe this is a factual issue, not a question of law. Therefore we believe as we requested a jury trial, it should have went to a jury rather than be decided by Summary Judgment. We believe the District Court erred.

* * *

2. We believe the Court also erred in granting a blanket Summary Judgment making the defendant guilty of intentionally guilty of damaging property, intentionally alienating or abandonment of property and breaching a contract. All of these things are allegations, none of these are based on any facts. This makes all these allegations questions of fact as there is no proof or documentation of any of the above occurred.

3. We believe the Court erred by not entering Judgment on each claim or issue spelled out in the Motion for Summary Judgment by the Plaintiff without citing laws and reasons which allowed for Summary Judgment on these unfactual claims.

4. We believe the Court erred in entering a blanket denial of the Defendant[']s Motion for Summary Judgment and Counter Claim and Request for a Jury Trial as these claims contained questions of facts. Without adjudicating each claim citing reasons and laws supporting Summary Judgment.

5. We believe the Court erred when it granted a Protective Order on a Subpoena for documents after Plaintiff refused to furnish them through a request. Another question of fact. We believe refusal to furnish is a violation of W.R.[]C.P. 26 B1.

6. We believe the Court erred when it granted a Protective Order on a second Request for Production, another violation of Rule 26 B.1.

7. We believe the Court erred when it did not grant a Motion to not allow any documents not produced under requests through discovery at any hearings or trial.

8. We believe the Court erred when it failed to invoke the Judicial Estoppel Rule after the Plaintiff, on page 5, lines 15-18 of the August 21, 1997, transcript. Stated this is not a contract issue. Then on page 9, lines 1-4, certainly this is a contract and again on page 10, No. 6 would definitely apply. It is a contract, it is an issue of contract that Mr. & Mrs. Dewey have with the Sellers.

9. We believe the Court erred when it allowed Production of Documents at the Hearings after they refused to furnish these documents, and got Protective Orders to keep from having to produce them.

10. We believe the Court erred [when] it granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on facts stated in their claims when on page 9, lines 1-3, the Plaintiff claims alleging Breach of Contract and Specific Performance. Also on page 5, lines 4-6 of August 21, 1997 transcript, they admit the above are only allegations, not facts.

11. We believe the Court erred by granting this Summary Judgment on alleged incidents, not on facts or formalities and pleading defects, Builders Corp. Of America v. United States, 9th Cir. 259 F.2d 766 & 346 P.2d 27½.

The Courts have recognized that cases are to be decided on the merits, and that suits which were originally equitable remedies will not be dismissed, but that Judgments will be decided on the proofs. William v. Snow, 186 P. 161.

12. We believe the Court erred by not following the rule "Insurance contracts are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured." See Wests Key, 146.7-1.

13. Did the Court erre [sic] when it granted a second Summary Judgement [sic] Hearing for the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff in the first Summary Judgement [sic] Hearing stated on page 23, lines 24-25 of the August 21, 1997 transcript, "that there were no more claims before the District Court that were appropriate for Summary Judgment." I believe this statement should invoke the Judicial Estoppel Rule and all other matters should go [to] the jury.

14. I also believe the Court erred by signing and approving an order granting Summary Judgment, that does not comply with the orders given on page 20 of the August 21, 1997 transcript. I received

...