RICHARD W. HODSON, Appellant (Plaintiff),
JANET L. STURGEON, Appellee (Defendant).
from the District Court of Park County The Honorable Steven
R. Cranfill, Judge
Representing Appellant: Pro se.
Representing Appellee: Larry B. Jones of Simpson, Kepler
& Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming division of Burg
Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, P.C., Cody, Wyoming.
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
Richard W. Hodson challenges the district court's order
which recognized and adopted the settlement he reached with
Janet L. Sturgeon. In that settlement, the parties agreed to
resolve their pending lawsuit and divide their jointly owned
property. Because Mr. Hodson failed to comply with the
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, we summarily affirm the
district court's order and grant Ms. Sturgeon's
request for an award of costs and attorney fees.
Mr. Hodson sued Ms. Sturgeon claiming breach of contract and
seeking a dissolution of partnership. His Complaint also
alleged that the parties jointly owned property. He asserted
the district court should set Ms. Sturgeon's interest in
that property over to him pursuant to a contract. On the day
of trial, the parties' attorneys told the district court
that they had settled the case. They recited the terms of the
settlement and submitted a written settlement agreement
signed by both parties. The district court entered an order
adopting the settlement. Mr. Hodson timely filed a notice of
appeal challenging that order.
Mr. Hodson is acting pro se in this appeal.
A pro se litigant is entitled to some leniency from
the stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted
by attorneys. However, there must be a reasonable adherence
to the procedural rules and requirements of the court.
Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2000).
This Court will impose sanctions including, but not limited
to, summary affirmance, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03 on pro
se litigants who fail to comply with these rules.
Id. at 1262-63.
Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295,
297 (Wyo. 2002). Mr. Hodson has not complied with our rules
of appellate procedure. Consequently, we summarily affirm the
district court's order.
W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2), (f) and ...