Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2008 WY 18

By Meg

Summary of Decision issued February 21, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Three Way, Inc. v. Burton Enterprises, Inc.; Burton Enterprises, Inc. v. Three Way, Inc.

Citation: 2008 WY 18

Docket Number: S-07-0139; S-07-0140

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County, the Honorable Dan R. Price, III, Judge

Representing Three Way, Inc.: Christopher M. Wages and Greg L. Goddard of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Representing Burton Enterprises, Inc.: Mark W. Gifford of Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: After a jury trial on some issues and a bench trial on other issues the district court ordered specific performance of a contract for the construction of certain water and sewer mains. After the jury found that Burton breached the contract, the district court found the contract to be unambiguous and ordered specific performance, rather than money damages. Three Way appealed that decision. Burton then cross-appealed alleging that the jury had been improperly instructed and that the district court had erred in an evidentiary ruling.

Three Way?s non-compliance with W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2): Three Ways? brief lacked precision in its citation to the record, but the Court did not summarily affirm because they could readily discern the relevant facts from the record.
Three Way?s motion for leave to amend its complaint: The district court denied Three Ways? motion for leave to amend its complaint filed thirteen months after the original complaint was filed and seven weeks before trial. The district court denied it as untimely. The record contained no facts from which the Court could determine abuse of discretion.
Burton?s motion in limine: A motion in limine is left to the sound discretion of the district court. The motion hearing was not reported and nothing in the record gave the reasons for the court?s rulings. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Three Way?s motion for leave to amend its complaint. Consequently, the only trial issues were breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The evidence was not relevant to those issues so the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Burton?s motion in limine in that regard.
Three Way?s motion to affirm jury?s verdict: The Court agreed with Burton that the motion to affirm the jury?s verdict was based on numerous Wyoming cases that did not control the result in the present case. The issue was a plea for the district court to apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment rather than to enforce the contract. The evidence revealed a fully integrated unambiguous contract and that is what the district court rightly enforced.
Jury instructions as to Three Way?s duty of workmanship: Even if the proposed instruction was a correct statement of the law under the facts of the case, the Court had to determine whether Burton was prejudiced by the district court?s refusal to give it. The Court concluded that Burton had not met its burden of proving that prejudice resulted. The testimony suggested that the groundwater problem in the entire area was a patent defect not some latent defect discovered upon beginning the project.
Three Ways? claimed money damages: Burton?s argument is that evidence of money amounts that Three Way had not been paid for work it performed prejudiced the jury against Burton and resulted in the jury?s conclusion that Burton rather than Three Way breached the contract. The Court concluded that Burton had not proven such prejudice. In the context of all the evidence, it was reasonable to conclude that the jury?s decision as to breach was not swayed by the monetary evidence.

Holding: The district court correctly resolved the case by relying upon the written contract of the parties as proven at trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the equitable option of unjust enrichment until such time as the evidence convinced it otherwise. None of the questioned rulings by the district court evinced an abuse of discretion or were contrary to law.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/34acwu .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on February 21, 2008 (boomark / email).