*1 (k) jurisdiction A court which has tenance in a issuing district outside original decree, (j) party enforce a decree under subsection must file a certified copy of may this section the divorce decree decline to exercise its show parties jurisdiction longer both no county if it finds it is an reside inconvenient addition, original jurisdiction. parent In forum under the circumstances of the case county must reside origi- and that the court which entered which the decree met, is filed. Even if nal those conditions appropriate decree is a more forum. the district court has broad discretion to 20-2-113(k) (Michie 1997). decline to hear the matter and to return it to forum, original depending on the circum- plain language (j) clearly of subsection stances of the case. expresses legislature’s recognition that a court, issuing district other than the court case, In this petition Father filed his with- decree, original appropriate is an forum copy out a certified original decree. only consideration of that decree when copy Without the of a certified parties both longer original are no decree, jurisdiction there is no under subsec- jurisdiction. (ii) Provisions in this We, therefore, (j). tion must reverse the dis- acknowledge subsection also that no action trict jurisdiction court’s determination that should be taken on the enforcement of the existed under the facts this case. knowledge decree without the full court’s history previous of the matter as found CONCLUSION Surely, knowledge documents. if this is nec- requirements Once the essary decree, to enforce a qua is a sine (j) satisfied, Wyo. 20-2-113 have been non modify for a determination to that de- confers matter cree as well. jurisdiction on the district court to hear a petition modify a divorce decree which was “We know construing well the rule that in However, issued another district court. statutes an absurd result should be avoided. pursuant Wyo. 20-2-113(k), presumption There is may the district court accept decline to adopt legislation intends to that is reasonable matter original and return it to the court. logical.” Gerstell v. State Dept. ex rel. requirements (j) Because the of subsection Taxation, Revenue and case, were not inmet we reverse and (and (Wyo.1989) therein). cases cited Were proceedings remand for in accord with this we to hold that the intended to decision. (j) the conditions of subsection matters, enforcement but not on modification
matters, abandoning we would be logic and
common sense. (k)
Similarly, subsection allows the jurisdiction district court to INC., Appellant decline its PETROLEUM (Petitioner), enforce a decree if it finds it is an inconven forum, ient original court is a more appropriate arena. To find that the district STATE of ex rel. STATE case, decline an enforcement EQUALIZATION, BOARD OF petition modify, not a is absurd. There Appellee (Respondent). fore, expanded jurisdiction we hold that the No. 98-226. afforded subsection to the district in Wyoming courts tempered by remains Supreme Wyoming. Court of requirements (j) of subsection and the discre July (k). tion of the district court under subsection result, party
As a if a wishes to file
petition for custody modification of or main- *2 Brown, Drew, Massey F.
Thomas Reese Sullivan, Casper, Wyoming, Representing & Appellant. Woodhouse,
Gay Deputy Attorney Y. Chief General; Hubbard, Deputy Michael L. Attor- General; Ivey, ney Harry D. Assistant General, Attorney Appellee. Representing C.J., LEHMAN, THOMAS, Before MACY, HILL, JJ. GOLDEN and MACY, Justice. petitioned
Appellant Petroleum Inc. district court a review of State Board which order affirmed Department of Revenue’s assessment of a court it. The district certi- Wyoming Supreme case fied the Court. Equaliza-
We affirm State Board tion’s decision.
ISSUES pursu- certified the case to Court 12.09(b). ant to W.R.A.P. presents two related issues our review: STANDARD OF REVIEW 1. Have the of Revenue *3 and State Board of acted con- When we review cases which have trary in determining to law the amount of been Wyoming certified to the Supreme against which could be assessed pursuant 12.09(b), Court ap W.R.A.P. we Appellant, Inc., pursuant ply appellate appli standards which are Wyo. (Michie § [to] 39-2-201 Stat. Ann. cable to the court of the first instance. Un 1997) Wyo. (Mi- § and 39-5-101 Telephone ion Company, Wyoming Inc. v. 1997)? chie Commission, 340, Public Service 907 P.2d (Wyo.1995). 341-42 Department Wyo. 2. Was the action of the 16-3- 114(c) (LEXIS 1999) governs judicial Revenue and the Equaliza- review arbitrary, capricious tion administrative and an abuse of decisions. W.R.A.P. 12.09(a); Industrial, discretion or Everheart v. S & L otherwise not accordance 957 847, (Wyo.1998). P.2d with the law? 851 presented The issues in this case FACTS require interpret us to 39-5-101(g). Stat gas producers utory Oil and required by interpretation were question is a of law. statute to file production reports annual Newton v. Wyoming with State ex rel. Workers’ Division, Department Compensation 863, of Revenue.1 The deadline 922 P.2d 864 (Wyo.1996); Lewis, 323, for the 1994 v. 852 P.2d Trefren year 27,1995. February (Wyo.1993). 325 agency’s Petroleum Inc. affirm We an con produced gas Wyoming oil and during they that clusions of law when accordance production year, but it with the did not file the re- law. Corman v. Wyo State ex rel. quired reports ming Division, for several Compensation of its wells until Workers’ 909 7,1995. September 966, (Wyo.1996). P.2d agency 970 When an properly has not invoked applied Pursuant 39-5-101(g) law, correct rule of agency’s we correct the (Michie 1994) (repealed 1998), Depart- Cutters, errors. Weaver v. Cost 953 P.2d ment of Revenue assessed a 851, (Wyo.1998); 855 Gneiting v. State ex rel. against Petroleum Inc. because of its delin- Division, Wyoming Compensation Workers’ quent filings. Department of Revenue 1306, 1308(Wyo.1995). subsequently reviewed the circumstances surrounding Petroleum filings Inc.’s late DISCUSSION
reduced by fifty per- assessment $84,826. cent to Petroleum Inc. claims the State Board appealed misinterpreted § Equalization, Board of and the board af- when it Department affirmed the of Reve- firmed the Revenue’s deci- nue’s assessment it. The sion. petition Petroleum Inc. filed a argues for a state Equali- that the State Board of review of the State Board of zation’s of the statute was con- court, order with the district and the plain district sistent with of the statute (Michie 1994) (re- (a) Ann. 39-2-201 to subsection of this section shall 1998) pealed provided part: in relevant sign under oath and submit statement department annually shall the information relative to the following property assess the at its fair market department may affairs of the value for taxation: require property: to assess the (i) gross product of all mines and min- claims, For mines and the same claims; ing prescribed by date as W.S. December (b) Annually, on or before the dates hereaf- indicated, any person ter whose 1240 legislature’s agree intent. We with circumstances would enable intelligently to the intention of determine
the state.
lawmaking body.”
statutory interpretation
Our rules of
Co.,
Realty
v.
(quoting
Thompson
Id.
Carter
first
are well
We
decide wheth
established.
(1942)).
P.2d
299
58
ambiguous. Lyles
er
is clear
generally
Compen
ex rel.
defer to the construc
v. State
Division Workers’
We
sation,
agency
tion
a statute
placed
845
This
P.2d
execution,
charged
provided,
makes
howev
that determination as a matter
Court
er,
Company
agency’s
v.
of law. Parker Land and Cattle
construction does not
Commission,
legislature’s
Fish
845 conflict with the
intent. Lara
Game and
(Wyo.1993);
Wyo
Allied-Signal,
County
P.2d
mie
*4
ming
Equalization,
Board
915
Equaliza
Inc. v.
State
P.2d
of
of
1184,
case,
tion,
214,
(Wyo.1996).
A
In
we
813 P.2d
220
“stat
1190
this
are
unambiguous
wording
cognizant
principle
the
that
ute is
if its
is such that
also
of
statutes
persons
agree
in
penal
generally
able to
to its which are
character are
reasonable
are
as
State,
meaning
consistency
predictability.”
strictly
construed. Meerscheidt v.
931
Inc.,
220,
Allied-Signal,
(Wyo.1997); Albany
Bldg.
224
“[I]n intent assumes that of a sen enacting placed ... the court ... must tence are other statute next to each logically Manage look to mischief the act was intended related to each other.’” cure, setting surrounding Wyoming Legislature the historical ment Council of enactment, public policy (Wyo.1998) Geringer, of the state, Gibson, (quoting all M. conditions law and John Kierzek & Walker prior contemporaneous English and The at 414 other facts MacMillian Handbook of (6th ed.1977)). case, “production In what the intended when it enacted penalty provision. claim” from mine or lan- directly guage phrase followed was Taking into arrangement consideration the dollars,” “but not to exceed five thousand and connection of the words singular. the term “well” was stated in the legislature’s purpose enacting 39-5-101(g). Section we conclude that the therefore, suggested, the De- Revenue could assess a maximum partment of Revenue was authorized to as- $5,000 per month on each well whose up sess delinquent. Equali- State Board of Nevertheless, agree each well. we zation’s of the statute was con- statutory language arguably susceptible legislature’s is, sistent with the intent and the construction asserted therefore, entitled to our deference. The conclude, therefore, We the statute is affirmance of ambiguous and that extrinsic aids of inter- assessment Petroleum pretation helpful will be in determining to us arbitrary, Inc. was not capricious, or other- legislature’s intent. contrary wise to the law. In ascertaining legislature’s Affirmed. intent, we look at the mischief the stat *5 words,
ute was intended to cure. In other THOMAS, Justice, dissenting, with whom light object we view the statute in the of the GOLDEN, Justice, joins. purpose that the intended to I persuaded Fact, am Findings that the accomplish when it enacted the statute. Law, Conclusions of Decision and Order of State Board v. Tenneco Oil the State Board of should be Company, The reversed, I and dissent from the resolution of purpose penalty provision of the was to en according majority opinion. this case to the courage producers mineral to comply in a parties The statutory both contend that the timely reporting require fashion with the but, scheme is unambiguous, clear and in the 2—201(b)(i) Wyo. § ment of Stat. Ann. 39— arguments, face of majority opinion those the 1997) (Michie 1998). (repealed Depart The Wyo. § concludes that Stat. Ann. reports ment Revenue used the to deter (Michie 1997) ambiguous. finding is mine gross the fair market value of min the ambiguity by majority the stretches the both production eral purposes. Wyo. taxation ambiguity doctrine of of the (Michie 1994) (re § beyond strength statute far the tensile 1998). pealed legislature specifically either. penalty linked the amount of the to the value only language Wyo. Ann. Stat. production by stating the mineral that the 39-2-201(b) (Michie 1997), appears which penalty percent amount of the was one possibly require to report a from production taxable value of a well’s but was Inc. is: $5,000 not to exceed month. Section 39- (b) Annually, on or before the dates 5-101(g). obviously The number of wells indicated, any hereafter person whose taxpayer’s affected the total value of a miner subject to subsection of this and, production accordingly, al the amount of sign section shall under oath and submit a taxes If assessed. limitation did statement the information relative well, apply not person to each a who had not and affairs of the reported single person well and a who department may require to assess reported had not on several wells would have property: subject penalty. been to the same If that true, were penalty the amount of the claims, would For mining mines and corresponded not have to the value of the prescribed by same date as W.S. 39- 6-304(a) production. obviously mineral That not production!1] for December 39-6-304(a) (Michie 1997) payments are due on or before the provided, pertinent part: monthly twenty-fifth day following "The tax of the second month any added.) re- ques- Equalization reports, alludes but (Emphasis appears No one report report quirement to in more than one seems to tion that this is the alluded 39-5-101(g), provid- clearly mandate. The where it is exceed majority opinion justifies pertinent part: ed noting that: by report any person fails file the (g) 2—201(b)(i) required W.S. due apply limitation not 39— If the did depart- any thereof, the date or extension well, reported not person each who had equal to ment single person had on a well and who not (1%) percent the taxable total one reported have on several wells would been well, from the mine value of penalty. If that to the same were mining not but to exceed five claim true, would amount not ($5,000) each calen- thousand dollars corresponded to of the min- have the value portion dar month or thereof obviously That eral was not report or is late. information what the intended when en- added.) (Emphasis provision. acted the clearly unequivocally This statute sets statutory language Remember $5,000 per a limitation of forth equal provides a total of one “a report calendar or infor- each of the taxable value Only required, report mation is late. mine or production from many encompass could as to exceed thousand dollars claim not five person producing required to file wells as ($5,000) portion for each calendar month or operates. The owns or thereof that or information is Equalization obviously failed to con- Board 39-5-101(g). late.” In its sider limitation contained order, ac- stating in its Conclusions of Law: instead *6 twenty-two counted for wells. each well is interpretation Wyo. 14. of Petitioner’s separately, the maximum to be considered § 39-5-101(g) suggesting a maximum Stat. monthly penalty for Inc. would be $5,000.00 month, penalty only per of $110,000. interpretation, majority Under company for be assessed one person largest owned coal mine who required failure file informa- file in the failed to State and tion, comport does with the clear and not pay penalty a maximum would unambiguous language of the statute. The $5,000 per month for each month that clearly provides penalty “a for penalty report was late. That would not in equal taxable any way correspond to of the min- the value production from the contrast, By the owner of eral matter, well...” In this several wells several, five, say gravel pits would have to were assessed. pay per a maximum month (Emphasis original.) Board of each was for late. a clear- wrote out the statute though Even a would assume limitation, majority ly expressed gravel production pits from the of more than following path in the lockstep this Court $2,500,000, might than be far less Equalization. the State Board of single value of the from a coal Perhaps fallacy reasoning simple in the example the mine. This illustrates not majority penultimate only disparity producers illustrated in its between mineral best majority although paragraph. The described same but assumes disparity separate producers within mineral penalty relates to each also state, cry so nor the same Such a is a far precisely statute does not does class. result uniformity require separate equality from the demanded Const, 11(d). Board of art. report for each well. leum, February February production.” Inc. was due on the month of Because Saturday, from Petro- categories taxpayers Other are identi intended significantly higher 39-2-201, they fied producers sanction on mineral that the ma required also are to file “a statement jority opinion approves.
the information relative to the I am satisfied that this scheme department affairs of the clearly and unambiguously provides * * for a n .” may require to assess maximum In our endeavor to disceta the intent of the report, failure file and the State Board respect penalties, with it is committed an error of law categories useful to consider how these other construing the statute I otherwise. would taxpayers compa are treated. Rail car reverse the nies, utilities, pipeline companies, electric instruction to enter an order consistent with telephone telegraph companies, other the correct construction of the statute which public companies utilities and railroad provide $35,000. would a maximum penalty of failing to a to file the required statement of not more than $500.00
plus day’s not more than for each $100.00 statement,
failure to file the a maximum of
$3,600.00 month, for the first and not more $3,100 per
than month thereafter. 39-5-101(e). good No reason
appears assuming