Summary 2008 WY 140

Summary of Decision issued November 25, 2008

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

Case Name: Busch v. Horton Automatics, Inc.

Citation: 2008 WY 140

Docket Number: S-08-0024

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, the Honorable Gary R. Hartman, Judge.

Representing Appellant Busch: M. Jalie Meinecke of Menecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Horton Automatics, Inc.: Jeffrey C. Brinkerhoff and Kelley A. Anderson of Gifford & Brinkerhoff, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Busch challenges the district court’s judgment and final order dismissing her tort claims against Horton Automatics, Inc. on the basis that those claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Busch’s complaint also stated claims against Kent Foulger d/b/a Blair’s Thriftway. Busch’s claim was filed in the district court on May 11, 2007 and at that time Horton was identified as “John Doe I.” She suffered her injuries on June 3, 2003. Because the claims against Thriftway remain pending, the district court included the appropriate W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification in its judgment. On June 28, 2007, after Busch discovered the name of “John Doe I,” she filed an amended complaint identifying the previously named defendant as Horton.
The Court stated the district court erred as a matter of law in dismissing the complaint on the basis that the statute of limitations provided Horton with a complete defense against Busch’s complaint and amended complaint.

Holding: The purpose of W.R.C.P. 17(d) is to provide a plaintiff with a means to toll the statute of limitations when she does not know the proper designation of the defendant. Permitting the relation back of an amended complaint under the circumstances is in accord with the rules and statutes which are applicable to such circumstances.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6doxa6 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

Summary 2008 WY 139

Summary of Decision issued November 25, 2008

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

Case Name: Bd. Of County Comm., Campbell County, WY v. Rio Tinto Energy America, Inc.

Citation: 2008 WY 139

Docket Number: S-08-0052

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge.

Representing Appellant Campbell County: Carol Seeger, Deputy Campbell County Attorney, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Rio Tinto Energy America, Inc.: Hadassah M. Reimer of Holland & Hart LLP, Jackson, Wyoming and Patrick R. Day of Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: This was an appeal from a district court’s reversal of a county’s calculation of statutory interest owed upon underpaid taxes. The question to the court: does Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-14-108(c)(i) require counties to offset overpaid taxes against underpaid taxes across tax years in an audit when calculating interest on underpaid taxes.
Rio Tinto operates two coal mines in Campbell County. After an audit covering the tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the Wyoming Department of Audit concluded that Rio Tinto had undervalued its production at both the mines for tax years 1999 and 2000 but that it had overvalued production for tax year 2001. The Department of Revenue certified to Campbell County notices of the valuation changes for the three tax years. Campbell County issued tax notices to Rio Tinto for the additional ad valorem taxes and interest due. The County Treasurer did not credit the 2001 overpayment against the 1999 and 2000 underpayments under the theory that the statute contemplated netting overpayments and underpayments during an audit period only between mines for the same tax year and not between tax years.
The County Treasurer would apply the statute by assessing interest on the 1999 underpayment from the due date until paid, would assess interest against the 2000 underpayment form the due date until paid, and would remit to Rio Tinto the 2001 overpayment upon receipt of notice form the Department of Revenue of the overpayment in the form of a rebate check and it would have no effect on the interest accrued during the audit period.
Rio Tinto would apply the statute by assessing interest on the 1999 underpayment from its due date and interest on the 2000 underpayment from its due date until receipt of the notice of the 2001 overpayment at which time it would subtract the overpayment from the total and assess interest only on the balance due form that point.
The Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the statute is unambiguous. The unequivocal mandate of the statute is that a net deficiency be computed, and that any offsetting credit be subtracted in determining the net deficiency for computing interest during the audit. This was the only reading of the statute that gave effect to both its requirement for the determination of a net deficiency and for its requirement that any offsetting credit be subtracted if within the cope of the audit period.

Holding: The district court correctly applied the statute to require the Campbell County Treasurer to determine Rio Tinto’s net ad valorem tax deficiency for the audit period by subtracting a 2001 overpayment credit from the gross deficiencies for 1999 and 2000.

Affirmed and remanded to apply the 2001 offsetting overvaluation credit in determining Rio Tinto’s net deficiency.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/68pb54 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

Summary 2008 WY 138

Summary of Decision issued November 21, 2008

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

Case Name: State v. Hanover Compression, LP

Citation: 2008 WY 138

Docket Number: S-07-0264

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General: Martin L. Hardsocg, Senior Assistant Attorney General; William F. Russell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee Hanover: Nicole Crighton and Jesse R. Adams, III of Oreck, Crighton, Adams & Chase, LLC, Boulder, Colorado.

Facts/Discussion: The Wyoming Department of Revenue (Department) challenged the Board of Equalization (Board) determination that certain income received by Hanover Compression, LP (Hanover) for the operation and maintenance of compressor facilities were exempt from sales tax.
The Court considered the question of whether the compressor facilities maintained by Hanover fell within the definition of real property found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-15-101(a)(v). A Department audit revealed that Hanover had not been paying sales tax on the income received for its operation and maintenance of the Williams compressor facilities.

Statutory interpretation: The Court compared the description of the compressor facilities to the plain meaning of the terms “structure” and “affixed.” It was clear the compressor facilities fit within the statutory definition of real property. The department did not dispute that the facilities were structures; rather they attempted to classify them as personal property by applying a common law analysis of fixtures. The Court gives effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and will not utilize statutory construction when the statute is clear and unambiguous. As applied, the statute is plain and unambiguous and the Court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to look further than the language of the statute.
Board’s application of the statute: The Department’s argument concerning the law of fixtures focuses on when goods or items of personal property become so related to particular real property that an interest in them arises under real property law. Applying a fixtures analysis would make the second sentence of § 39-15-101(a)(v) unnecessary and the Court will not give a statute a meaning that nullifies its operation if it is susceptible to another interpretation.

Holding: The Board’s interpretation of the statutory definition of real property found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-15-101(a)(v) is in accord with the law. Likewise the Board’s factual determination that the compressor facilities fit within that statutory definition is supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6hkgwx .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

Summary 2008 WY 137

Summary of Decision issued November 19, 2008

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

Case Name: Beyer v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 137

Docket Number: S-08-0046

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Appellant Beyer: Craig James Beyer, pro se.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham Macdonald Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Beyer appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He contended that when the probation officer ordered him to attend an inpatient substance abuse treatment program under threat of revocation and an escape charge if he did not comply, it meant that he was entitled to credit for that time toward his sentence. He incorrectly applied the statement from YellowBear that a probationer is entitled to credit for time spent in an inpatient alcohol treatment facility when a charge of escape will lie. Beyer was not cautioned by the court that he was considered to be in custody while at the program.

Holding: Beyer presented no authority for the proposition that an officer’s statement imposes official detention for the purposes of the escape statute. Beyer was not entitled to credit against his sentence for the time he spent undergoing treatment.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5gvsrw .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

Summary 2008 WY 136

Summary of Decision issued November 18, 2008

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

Case Name: Wolf v. Allen

Citation: 2008 WY 136

Docket Number: S-08-0080

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge.

Representing Appellant Wolf: Phillip Wolf, pro se.

Representing Appellee Allen: Richard Mathey of Green River, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Wolf requested relief from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Allen. No appeal was taken from the denial of Wolf’s Rule 60(b) motion so the Court only had jurisdiction over the appeal as it related to the Order for Summary Judgment. Wolf’s argument is essentially an argument that he should have been allowed to withdraw his admissions under 36(b).

Wolf did not timely respond to Allen’s Second Request for Admissions. Therefore, the district court was correct in deeming those points admitted to which Wolf failed to respond in a timely manner. A court may permit withdrawal of an admission on motion. However, Wolf never filed a motion requesting withdrawal of his admissions under Rule 36(b).

Holding: Wolf did not request withdrawal of his admissions under Rule 36(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted summary judgment based on those admissions and the Court affirmed.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/64abtf .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]