Jeff Lokey v. Mike Irwin
2016 WY 50
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Lokey and Irwin dissolved two businesses by contract allocating assets, debts, and required payments from Irwin to Lokey.
- Irwin sued Lokey (Dec. 2014), alleging Lokey breached the dissolution agreement; Lokey was served but did not timely answer and the clerk entered default (Jan. 2015).
- The district court held a hearing and entered a document titled "Entry of Default Judgment with Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law" (Apr. 27, 2015) declaring Lokey in material breach and relieving Irwin of further obligations; the judgment included a provision allowing ten days to file objections to the form or content of the order.
- Lokey filed objections within ten days; the district court denied those objections (June 24, 2015). Lokey then filed a notice of appeal (July 28, 2015) appealing the denial of objections.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal did not timely challenge an appealable order (the default judgment) and Lokey's objections did not toll the appeal deadline; the court dismissed the appeal but awarded appellee attorney fees on appeal under the contract and invited fee documentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lokey) | Defendant's Argument (Irwin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear Lokey's appeal | The order denying objections was the appealable order; objection was timely and appeal is within deadline | The appeal should have been from the default judgment; order denying objections is non-appealable and untimely | Court: Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Lokey appealed a non-appealable order and failed to timely appeal the default judgment |
| Whether Lokey's post-judgment objections tolled the appeal deadline | The district court's 10-day invitation to file objections tolled the appeal period; equitable reliance justifies permitting the appeal | The objections were mere requests for reconsideration (not authorized motions) and did not toll the deadline | Court: Objections were not motions that toll W.R.A.P. 2.02; no tolling; timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional |
| Whether a district court may prospectively invite post-judgment objections contrary to rules | Lokey: court's invitation created a valid post-judgment procedural window | Irwin: such an invitation is unauthorized; reliance on it does not extend appellate deadlines | Court: District court lacked authority to create that procedure; its order was a nullity for purposes of tolling deadlines |
| Whether appellee is entitled to appellate attorney fees despite dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Lokey: not addressed on merits (appeal dismissed) | Irwin: contract entitles prevailing party to fees on appeal | Court: Court has jurisdiction to award collateral attorney fees; Irwin is prevailing party and may recover reasonable appellate fees upon submission of documentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (rejecting equitable "unique circumstances" tolling of appellate deadlines)
- Paxton Res., L.L.C. v. Brannaman, 95 P.3d 796 (Wyo.) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Waldron v. Waldron, 349 P.3d 974 (Wyo.) (substance of postjudgment filings determines tolling effect)
- 2-H Ranch Co., Inc. v. Simmons, 658 P.2d 68 (Wyo.) (conditional/tentative judgments are not final or appealable until conditions met)
- Miller v. Murdock, 783 P.2d 614 (Wyo.) (district court lacks authority to extend filing periods; reliance does not toll deadlines)