Jeffrey Barnes and Sherrie Barnes v. Melissa Cooney, Val Pendleton, and Coldwell Banker Country Estates

Wyoming Supreme Court

Jeffrey Barnes and Sherrie Barnes v. Melissa Cooney, Val Pendleton, and Coldwell Banker Country Estates

2013 WY 105, 309 P.3d 799, 2013 WL 5180538, 2013 Wyo. LEXIS 110

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 2013

DocketS-13-0024

StatusPublished

This text of 2013 WY 105 (Jeffrey Barnes and Sherrie Barnes v. Melissa Cooney, Val Pendleton, and Coldwell Banker Country Estates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeffrey Barnes and Sherrie Barnes v. Melissa Cooney, Val Pendleton, and Coldwell Banker Country Estates, 2013 WY 105, 309 P.3d 799, 2013 WL 5180538, 2013 Wyo. LEXIS 110 (Wyo. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶1] The appellants purchased a home in Lincoln County, Wyoming. Dissatisfied with some aspects of the construction and purchase of the home, the appellants sued a development company, the building contractor, the real estate agency involved in the transaction, a real estate agent, and, eventually, the real estate broker. The appellants alleged breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estop-pel, fraud in the inducement, professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The defendants, some of whom are now the appellees in this appeal, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which motion was granted by the district court. This appeal followed.

[¶2] We will summarily affirm the district court's ruling because the appellant's brief fails in all respects to meet the requirements of W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2) and (F). The brief contains a statement of the standard of review, along with lengthy deposition excerpts. Beyond that, however, it is void of any factual analysis, cogent legal argument, or citation to pertinent authority that might enlighten this Court as to how the appellants were damaged by any conduct of the appel-lees. 1

[¶3] In addition to summarily affirming the district court, this Court will also, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05, certify that there exists no discernible cause for this appeal, and will impose costs and attorney's fees against the appellants, in favor of the appellees consistent with that rule. The appellees shall file an appropriate certificate of costs and attorney's fees within fifteen days from the publication of this opinion.

[¶4] The resolution of this case in this manner should come as no surprise. This Court has a long history of rejecting deficient briefs and imposing sanctions where appropriate. See eg., Montoya v. Navarette-Montoya, 2005 WY 161, ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 265, 269 (Wyo.2005); Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo.2003); Kelley v. Watson, 2003 WY 127, ¶¶ 4-5, 77 P.3d 691, 692 (Wyo.2003); Baker v. Reed, 965 P.2d 1153, 1154-55 (Wyo.1998); State ex rel. Reece v. Wyo. State Bd. of Outfitters & Professional Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 (Wyo.1997).

[¶5] Affirmed.

1

. The real estate company, broker, and agent are the appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶1] The appellants purchased a home in Lincoln County, Wyoming. Dissatisfied with some aspects of the construction and purchase of the home, the appellants sued a development company, the building contractor, the real estate agency involved in the transaction, a real estate agent, and, eventually, the real estate broker. The appellants alleged breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estop-pel, fraud in the inducement, professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The defendants, some of whom are now the appellees in this appeal, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which motion was granted by the district court. This appeal followed.

[¶2] We will summarily affirm the district court's ruling because the appellant's brief fails in all respects to meet the requirements of W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2) and (F). The brief contains a statement of the standard of review, along with lengthy deposition excerpts. Beyond that, however, it is void of any factual analysis, cogent legal argument, or citation to pertinent authority that might enlighten this Court as to how the appellants were damaged by any conduct of the appel-lees. 1

[¶3] In addition to summarily affirming the district court, this Court will also, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05, certify that there exists no discernible cause for this appeal, and will impose costs and attorney's fees against the appellants, in favor of the appellees consistent with that rule. The appellees shall file an appropriate certificate of costs and attorney's fees within fifteen days from the publication of this opinion.

[¶4] The resolution of this case in this manner should come as no surprise. This Court has a long history of rejecting deficient briefs and imposing sanctions where appropriate. See eg., Montoya v. Navarette-Montoya, 2005 WY 161, ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 265, 269 (Wyo.2005); Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo.2003); Kelley v. Watson, 2003 WY 127, ¶¶ 4-5, 77 P.3d 691, 692 (Wyo.2003); Baker v. Reed, 965 P.2d 1153, 1154-55 (Wyo.1998); State ex rel. Reece v. Wyo. State Bd. of Outfitters & Professional Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 (Wyo.1997).

[¶5] Affirmed.

1

. The real estate company, broker, and agent are the appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2013 WY 105, 309 P.3d 799, 2013 WL 5180538, 2013 Wyo. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-barnes-and-sherrie-barnes-v-melissa-cooney-val-pendleton-and-wyo-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack