Summary 2006 WY 52

Summary of Decision issued April 20, 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. 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 for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Rawlinson v. Wallerich

Citation: 2006 WY 52

Docket Number: 05-166

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Bernard Q. Phelan, Phelan Law Offices, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Blair J. Trautwein, Wick, Bramer, Ukasick & Trautwein, LLC, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

Date of Decision: April 20, 2006

Issue: Whether Ms. Rawlinson’s action to compel arbitration is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Holding: The appeal involves a dispute that arose from Appellant’s purchase of a house from Appellees in 1994. Appellant noticed water in her crawl space and subsequently that the property flooded every spring. Appellant filed suit in 1998 against Appellees and other named defendants. Appellees moved to compel binding arbitration in accordance with the terms of the sales contract. The parties sought a voluntary dismissal of the claims against Appellees by filing a stipulation. The district court entered an Order of Dismissal of Defendants Wallerich on April 14, 2000. It contained language purporting to dismiss the claims with prejudice. After the conclusion of the litigation against the remaining defendants, Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration in the original action against Appellees. The district court denied the motion based upon the Order of Dismissal previously entered. Appellant next filed a Complaint for Arbitration against Appellees. The district court found the matter was barred pursuant to res judicata.
This appeal involves the interpretation and application of W.R.C.P. 41(a)(1) which presents a question of law the Court reviews de novo. The Court looked at the procedural history of the case. The character of the dismissal is important because a dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits and precludes subsequent action. There was a discrepancy between the stipulation entered into by Appellees and Appellant and the order of dismissal. Stipulations take effect when filed and do not require an order of the court. In the instant case, the parties requested that an order be entered, but only to the extent that it approved their stipulation. There was no request that the court retain jurisdiction, therefore the Court concluded that the order was superfluous because it was entered after Appellees were dismissed from the action by the filing of the stipulation. The Court then looked to the terms of the stipulation to answer whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The stipulation was silent in this regard and as a result, the rule requires the dismissal be without prejudice. Appellant’s claim for arbitration has never been adjudicated.

The Court reversed and remanded the case.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/mj7g2 .