Summary 2006 WY 3

Summary of Decision issued January 6, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also 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 from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

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

Case Name: Plymale v. Donnelly

Citation: 2006 WY 3

Docket Number: 05-1

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Patrick Hunter, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Devon O’Connell Coleman of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2006

Issues: Whether a motion for reconsideration, a motion that is neither authorized nor recognized under Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, can extend time for appeal.

Holdings: The Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final, appealable orders. In the instant case, the Court has jurisdiction only if the district court order denying Appellant’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration is a final, appealable order. The Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure provide various methods to obtain relief from judgment. They do not recognize a stand-alone “motion for reconsideration”. The Court stated that strict compliance with the rules requires that motions for reconsideration be considered nullities. The Court stated that “[h]enceforth, we will enforce the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure as written and consider post-judgment motions for reconsideration, so denominated, a nullity.” The entertainment of motions for reconsideration is a waste of judicial resources. In addition the Court noted that the past practice of recognizing motions for reconsideration had produced inconsistent results. Filing an authorized motion for post-judgment relief will eliminate uncertainty for all involved and will ensure full appellate rights are preserved. The consequence of categorizing a motion for reconsideration as a nullity is that “all judgments or final orders from said motion are a nullity.” This includes orders denying motions for reconsideration and any action taken pursuant to such an order as well. The district order denying Appellant’s motion to reconsider is void. As there is no final appealable order to review, the appeal is dismissed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

J. Kite, specially concurred which J. Burke joined: J. Kite was concerned that the majority went further than necessary to reach the result and failed to give proper regard to stare decisis. In Sherman v. Rose, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration cannot extend the time for appeal unless the motion is the functional equivalent of a post-judgment motion authorized under the rules. The holding suggests that any motion delineated as a motion for reconsideration will be automatically a nullity, even if the content of the motion is the functional equivalent of an authorized motion under the rules. As a practical matter, when assessing the timeliness of an appeal and determining whether a post-judgment motion has tolled the time for appealing, the Court will still need to consider the substance of the motion. The emphasis must be on substance rather than form of a particular pleading. Additionally, the majority opinion should have prospective application only.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/b9gno