Summary 2007 WY 62

Summary of Decision issued April 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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.]

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

Case Name: Chevron v. Dep’t of Revenue, State of Wyoming

Citation: 2007 WY 62

Docket Number: 06-67

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): William M. McKellar and Erin M. Freeman of Boley & McKellar, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. McKellar.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Cathleen D. Parker, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Parker.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the delay in filing was not caused by excusable neglect, where Appellant filed the Petition for Review after the statutory deadline because of a calendaring error.

Facts/Discussion: Chevron filed a Petition for Review of Administrative Action contesting an unfavorable determination by the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) regarding Appellant’s dispute with the Wyoming Department of Revenue, over valuation methods for tax year 2002. The district court dismissed that Petition as untimely and found that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing a Petition for Review because the doctrine of excusable neglect did not apply to Appellant’s actions with regard to the untimely filing.
Standard of Review: The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is one the Court reviews de novo. The authority to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect is vested exclusively in the district court and involves the exercise of discretion.
It is well established in Wyoming case law that under the current Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, timely filing of a petition for review of administrative action is mandatory and jurisdictional. W.R.A.P. 12.04 governs the filing of a petition for review. The rule requires a petition for review be filed within 30 days of service of the final decision of the agency. That time may be extended up to 30 days only if the district court finds the lack of timely filing is attributable to excusable neglect. The SBOE served its final decision on October 28, 2005. Chevron was required to file a petition by November 30, 2005 to preserve the district court’s jurisdiction over the proceeding. They failed to do so.
Excusable neglect is measured on a strict standard to take care of genuine emergency conditions such as death, sickness, undue delay in the mails and other situations where such behavior might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Appellant’s counsel had implemented a highly redundant system that appeared well designed to ensure the proper docketing of events related to lawsuits. There was no evidence that anything outside counsel’s control caused or was even a factor leading to, the untimely filing.

Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that human error caused by a busy office environment which resulted in the failure of Appellant’s highly redundant docketing system, did not constitute excusable neglect. Therefore, the district court properly denied Appellant’s motion to extend the time to file a petition for review, and properly dismissed the Motion for Review as untimely.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yubyds .