Marziale v. Spanish Fork City
2017 UT 51
| Utah | 2017Background
- Carole and James Marziale fell and sued Spanish Fork City; complaint filed electronically on August 2, 2013.
- First submission (Spanish Fork division) lacked the Governmental Immunity Act-required undertaking and was auto-rejected; plaintiffs say they did not receive that rejection notice.
- At 4:20 p.m. the same day plaintiffs refiled in the Provo division with an undertaking; the e-filing status shows approval/receipt issued but a clerk manually marked it "invalid" due to a credit-card payment error. Plaintiffs say they did not receive that rejection notice either.
- Statute of limitations expired Sept. 6–7, 2013; plaintiffs learned of rejections on Sept. 10, 2013 and refiled that day.
- District court granted defendant City summary judgment (holding the Sept. 10 filing was untimely); the court of appeals reversed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dishonored credit-card payment invalidated the Provo filing such that the complaint was not timely filed | Dishonor of payment does not affect filing validity under Utah R. Civ. P. 3(a); the Provo e-filing showed approval so filing was timely (Aug. 2) | Court fees statute and rule wording require payment at time of acceptance; credit-card error means filing was not validly accepted | Dishonor of payment does not affect filing validity; the credit-card error did not make the Provo filing untimely (Rule 3 controls). |
| Whether the dishonored payment invalidated the required Governmental Immunity Act undertaking | The Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 3) apply to undertakings; dishonor of payment likewise does not invalidate the undertaking and failure to file undertaking is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional | Late or unpaid undertaking defeats subject-matter jurisdiction under the Act (City contends) | Undertaking payment treated like filing under Rule 3; dishonor does not invalidate the undertaking; failure to timely file undertaking is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dipoma v. McPhie, 29 P.3d 1225 (Utah 2001) (payment of filing fees not jurisdictional; returned check does not undo filing)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (summary-judgment factual-viewing standard)
- Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806 (Utah 2007) (scope of certiorari review)
- Ellsworth Paulsen Constr. Co. v. 51-SPR-L.L.C., 183 P.3d 248 (Utah 2008) (summary-judgment legal-review standard)
- Hamblin v. City of Clearfield, 795 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1990) (view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Hansen v. Salt Lake Cty., 794 P.2d 838 (Utah 1990) (failure to timely file undertaking is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional)
- Aequitas Enters. v. Interstate Inv. Grp., 267 P.3d 923 (Utah 2011) (begin with plain language of rules)
- Craig v. Provo City, 389 P.3d 423 (Utah 2016) (scope of the Governmental Immunity Act and when it displaces other law)