Mader v. Stephenson
552 P.2d 1114, 1976 Wyo. LEXIS 206 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Attorney's fees and litigation costs are not recoverable absent a specific statute or contractual agreement, and an award of punitive damages is solely within the discretion of the fact-finder, whose refusal to award them is not reversible on appeal.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a contract on October 11, 1973.
- Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs $1,000 that was owed under the contract.
- In order to pursue the legal action, Plaintiffs incurred expenses for air transportation to return from Kentucky for the trial.
- Plaintiffs also paid a fee to their attorney for prosecuting the action against the Defendant.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in a state trial court for breach of contract.
- The trial court, acting as the fact-finder, entered a judgment for the Plaintiffs for $1000 plus interest.
- The trial court specifically found that the Defendant's actions did not permit the recovery of punitive damages and denied Plaintiffs' request for them, along with attorney's fees and other costs.
- The Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's denial of additional damages to the state's highest court, with the Defendant as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a breach of contract action, can a plaintiff recover attorney's fees, litigation costs, and punitive damages on appeal when the trial court, acting as the fact-finder, has declined to award them, even if the defendant's breach was 'unjustified'?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A plaintiff in a breach of contract action cannot recover such damages on appeal after the trial court has refused to award them. The court reasoned that under the established 'American Rule,' attorney's fees and other litigation expenses, like travel, are not recoverable unless specifically authorized by a statute or the contract itself. Regarding punitive damages, the court held that no party has a right to them; their award is purely optional and rests solely within the discretion of the fact-finder. Therefore, when a trial court, acting as the fact-finder, exercises its discretion and chooses not to award punitive damages, an appellate court cannot overturn that decision. The trial court's finding that the defendant's failure to pay was 'unjustified' is implicit in any judgment for breach of contract and does not create an entitlement to punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms two key principles in contract damages. First, it upholds the 'American Rule,' making it clear that litigation costs are not typically shifted to the losing party without explicit statutory or contractual authority. Second, it establishes a high level of deference to the trial court's discretion on punitive damages, effectively insulating a fact-finder's refusal to award them from appellate review. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for a plaintiff who was denied punitive damages at trial to have that decision reversed, solidifying the idea that such damages are a matter of grace, not of right.
