Western Sur. Co. v. Town of Evansville, 83-136
Decision Date | 18 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-136,83-136 |
Citation | 675 P.2d 258 |
Parties | WESTERN SURETY CO., Appellant (Defendant), Barbara Moore, (Defendant), v. TOWN OF EVANSVILLE, Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David A. Scott of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellant.
Frank R. Chapman, Casper, for appellee.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
The Town of Evansville brought suit upon a bond issued by Western Surety Company to recover losses resulting from misappropriation of funds by the town treasurer and clerk of the municipal court. From a summary judgment granted appellee, Town of Evansville, Western Surety brings this appeal.
The sole issue presented for our determination, as stated by appellant, is whether:
"[The court] erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of the Appellee and against the Appellant, the summary judgment being granted on information contained in an affidavit submitted by the Appellee and in a written report prepared by the Office of the State Examiner of the State of Wyoming concerning certain financial books and records of the Appellee."
We will affirm the summary judgment in the amount of $25,000 for losses in each of the five years following the fiscal year ending June 1975, and remand for trial appellee's claim for the fiscal year commencing June 1974 and ending June 1975.
Admissions at the pretrial conference held in this case, as shown by the pretrial memoranda of the parties, were as follows:
Western Surety made further admissions in its statement of factual issues as follows:
Appellant, Western Surety Company, filed a motion requesting that summary judgment be entered in favor of the Town of Evansville in the amount of $15,000 and no more than this amount. Appellant took the position that the only losses established by the examiner's report were for the years 1978, 1979, and 1980; that losses due to misappropriation of funds by the town treasurer exceeded $5,000 in each of those years; and that the maximum coverage provided by the bond issued by Western Surety Company was $5,000 for each year. In essence, appellant's motion was an offer or confession of judgment in the amount of $15,000.
Appellee filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit was prepared by a certified public accountant employed by appellee. Although the affidavit was entitled "in opposition of," it did not "oppose" but sought summary judgment in the amount of $30,000 or $15,000 more than the amount contended for by appellant. The parties raise no issue concerning timely filing of the affidavit, opportunity to respond to it or the propriety of entry of summary judgment. The dispute between them concerns only whether the summary judgment should be entered in an amount greater than $15,000.
The affidavit prepared by appellee's certified public accountant stated the following:
The court entered summary judgment for the maximum loss covered under the bond in each year in a total amount of $30,000 in favor of appellee, Town of Evansville. Appellant contends the affidavit of the CPA should not have been considered because of its conclusory nature; that, in the absence of the affidavit, there was only the examiner's report for the court to consider; and that it was insufficient to support the entry of summary judgment for the six-year period in the amount of $30,000.
We have before us the report of the examiner, the affidavit of appellee's expert, and all other material that was before the district court when it considered this motion for summary judgment. On review our duty is the same as that of the district court in determining whether and to what extent summary judgment should be entered. Dubus v. Dresser Industries, Wyo., 649 P.2d 198 (1982).
A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the party carrying that burden. Underwater Storage, Inc. v. United States Rubber Company, 371 F.2d 950 (C.A.D.C.1966), cert. denied 386 U.S. 911, 87 S.Ct. 859, 17 L.Ed.2d 784 (1967). Thus,
" * * * The court, upon considering a motion for summary judgment is compelled to closely scrutinize the moving party's document; whereas, the opposing parties' papers, if any, should be treated with some indulgence. * * * " Continental Aircraft Sales v. McDermott Brothers Company, 316 F.Supp. 232, 236 (D.C.Pa.1970).
In considering all of the materials presented, both in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, we view the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and give to that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that might be drawn from those materials. Schepps v. Howe, Wyo., 665 P.2d 504 (1983); Dubus v. Dresser Industries, supra; Bender v. New Zealand Bank & Trust (Bahamas) Ltd., 67 F.R.D. 638 (D.C.N.Y.1974).
Here appellant filed a motion for summary judgment, but it was more in the nature of a confession of judgment in the amount of $15,000. Appellee filed an affidavit seeking entry of summary judgment in the amount of $30,000. To the extent that appellee sought summary judgment in an amount greater than $15,000, he was the moving party; and it is the affidavit he presented that we closely scrutinize as we view the evidence in a light most favorable to appellant.
Rule 56(e), W.R.C.P. 1 , requires that affidavits filed in summary judgment proceedings "shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence," and shall have attached thereto "copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to" in the affidavit. Appellee employed a certified public accountant as an expert who presented an affidavit that was partly factual but mostly contained opinions based upon a review of certain documents and records. He concluded that
" * * * deposits of currency from the Town of Evansville court fund fell drastically and were apparently compensated by monies from the Town's water sink fund * * *," (Emphasis added.)
and that
" * * * it appears that there was over $5,000.00 loss in each year * * *." (Emphasis added.)
No supporting documents were attached, nor even identified, nor were facts stated supporting the opinions. If deposits of cash were less than usual, how much less were they, how often did that occur, and in what amounts?
Affidavits used in summary judgment proceedings must set forth such facts as are admissible in evidence, and that is especially true when the affidavit contains significant opinions and conclusions that may be critical in the outcome of the case. It matters not that the opinion of an expert may be admissible at trial without first revealing the underlying facts and basis for that opinion. This is a summary judgment hearing and the requirements are different. The fact finder must have the material facts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Curry
...of a conclusion as to an ultimate fact and cannot be relied upon to contest the motion for summary judgment. Western Surety Company v. Town of Evansville, 675 P.2d 258 (Wyo.1984). See Keller. The other evidentiary materials that the Currys submitted lacked proper foundation and, for that re......
-
Kibbee v. First Interstate Bank
...and the above-emphasized language of the Evidentiary Rules. Any tension between these rules was addressed in Western Sur. Co. v. Town of Evansville, 675 P.2d 258, 261-63 (Wyo.1984). There, we found deficiencies in a retained expert's affidavit submitted in response to a summary judgment mot......
-
Braunstein v. Robinson Family Ltd. P'ship Llp
...certified copies of papers referred to in affidavit); Greenwood v. Wierdsma, 741 P.2d 1079 (Wyo.1987) (same); Western Surety Co. v. Town of Evansville, 675 P.2d 258 (Wyo.1984) (affidavit containing significant opinions and conclusions that may be critical in the outcome of the case must rev......
-
Lavoie v. Safecare Health Service, Inc.
...treats this case like one in which a directed verdict should be granted in affirming the summary judgment. In Western Surety Co. v. Town of Evansville, 675 P.2d 258, 264 (Wyo.1984), we adopted the following language quoted in Hughes v. American Jawa, Ltd., 529 F.2d 21, 25 (8th It is only wh......