Marziale v. Spanish Fork City
380 P.3d 40
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 11, 2011 Carole Marziale fell at the Spanish Fork City Sports Complex; she and her husband filed a notice of claim that was deemed denied on September 7, 2012.
- Plaintiffs attempted to commence suit on August 2, 2013 by transmitting two nearly identical complaints (one to the Spanish Fork department, one to the Provo department) via an outside e-filing service.
- The Spanish Fork transmission was automatically rejected for an unspecified damages amount; the Provo transmission initially showed "Approved" then was manually marked "Invalid" due to a credit-card/payment error.
- The court administrator notified the e-filing vendor of the rejections on August 2, but Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive notice; counsel discovered the problem on September 10 and re-submitted payment then.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing the suit was barred by the Utah Governmental Immunity Act one-year filing deadline (action required within one year of denial, i.e., by Sept. 6, 2013); the district court held the August transmissions were not filed because they were not accepted and granted summary judgment for the City.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Provo complaint was filed on August 2, 2013 despite the payment rejection, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint was "filed" within the one-year statutory period under the Governmental Immunity Act | August 2 transmission to court/E-filing system constituted filing under Utah R. Civ. P. 5(e) and rule 3; dishonor of payment does not negate filing | Filing requires acceptance by court and payment; clerk may reject for lack of payment so transmission alone is insufficient | Court held the Provo complaint was filed on Aug 2 when received by the e-filing system; payment error did not invalidate filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Dipoma v. McPhie, 29 P.3d 1225 (Utah 2001) (payment of filing fees is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to commence an action; dishonored payment does not void filing)
- Flowell Elec. Ass’n, Inc. v. Rhodes Pump, LLC, 361 P.3d 91 (Utah 2015) (summary judgment review standard cited)
- Ottens v. McNeil, 239 P.3d 308 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (statute of limitations application is a question of law for correctness review)