*1 WY 57 Wilson, Kim WILSON Lisa G. husband, Appellants
wife and (Plaintiffs), ALPINE, Wyoming, OF TOWN (Defendant). No. 04-167. Wyoming. Supreme Court of 9,May Anthony
Representing Appellants: V. Ve- Offices, P.C., Evanston, har of Vehar Law Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Richard Rideout Rideout, P.C., of Law Offices of Richard Cheyenne, Wyoming. HILL, C.J., GOLDEN, KITE,
Before VOIGT, BURKE, JJ.
VOIGT, Justice, opinion delivered the Court. dismissed this The district court
negligence action not meet con- claim did requirements. dismiss this stitutional the same reason. appeal for
ISSUES the district court have Did claim? over the equita- barred Was estoppel or laches from doctrine of either ble jurisdic- asserting tion?
291 FACTS under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). 2, 1998, July staying in while [¶2] On appeal, appellants [¶ 4] On the in allegedly Alpine, Wyoming, Lisa Wilson con - sist the district court consid Hemolytic-Ur- poisoning e-coli and tracted claim, copy ered the notice of of which was by Syndrome drinking water from the emic attached to the motion but which had not (the municipal Alpine’s appellee) Town of any pleading, been attached to the motion 7, 1999, supply. and her On June Wilson was to a converted W.R.C.P. 56 motion for (the appellants) presented a notice husband summary judgment. The district court’s or appellee pursuant claim to the of not, however, der does evidence such conver Act, Wyoming Governmental Claims sion, findings and contain does not the and (Lexis 1999), seq. §Ann. et suggest summary that conclusions alleging appellee’s negligence the had judgment.2 areWe inclined to follow suit appellants’ injuries. of caused the The notice and to the motion consider as it was enti appellants’ attorney, the end, tled —a motion to dismiss. the appellants, than rather the and was makes little difference because the material penalty perjury. certified under dispute judgment facts are not in and appellants and the appellee denied reviewing entered as a matter of law. 28, 2004, May May filed suit 2000. On both motions to dismiss and motions for sum granting court an entered order mary judgment judg well as motions for —as dismiss, appellee’s citing motion to Beau pleadings ment on the facts are consid —the ¶31, 15, lieu v. 2004 light WY 86 P.3d ered in party most favorable to the Ide, motion, opposing the grant and Yoak v. 2004 and the motion is ¶ only ed if those 32, 6, judgment facts dictate that 86 P.3d for WY 874 should be entered as matter of law. See proposition that a SRW, Quinn Bonnie M. Revocable v. Trust meeting signature the constitutional Inc., 65, ¶ 8, 91 P.3d deficient, certification there (Wyo.2004) (quoting Manion v. Chase Man jur depriving the court of ¶49, 6, Mortgage Corp., hattan isdiction.1 This followed. ¶ (Wyo.2002)); Rodriguez P.3d v. Ca 111, ¶ 4, sey, 2002 WY 50 P.3d
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rosenbaum,
(Wyo.2002) (quoting
Greeves
(Wyo.1998));
and McLean
appellee’s
[¶ 3] The
motion to dismiss did
Inc.,
Hyland Enterprises,
identify
particular
court rule as its
¶ 6,
(Wyo.2001).
Conclu
basis,
juris-
did not mention
sions of law are reviewed de novo. Bixler v.
diction,
alleged solely
the notice
¶
L.L.C.,
Management,
Oro
Logically,
claim was defective.
such a mo-
(Wyo.2004).
tion could have been made under W.R.C.P.
12(b)(6),
for failure to state a claim
DISCUSSION
granted.
can
which relief
The district
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
court, however, noting that the absence of a
valid notice of claim is
treated
appellants presented
the motion
a motion to
a notice of claim that
as
dismiss for
added.)
(Emphasis
1. Article
7 of the
provides as follows:
money
following
paid
2. None of the
were included in the
No
shall be
out of the state
treasury
except upon appropriation
leaving
appeal,
gap
law and
record on
a considerable
officer,
on warrant drawn
ability
happened
this Court’s
to understand what
bills, claims,
against
accounts or demands
appellants'
below: the
traverse to the motion to
state,
any county
political
or
subdivi-
dismiss,
traverse,
appellee’s response
to that
sion,
audited,
paid
shall be
until a
allowed
know,
hearing transcript.
and the
We do not
writing,
statement in
itemized
instance,
full
certified
the district court considered
penalty
perjury,
under
shall be
filed
appellants'
counsel.
affidavit of the
duty may
whose
be to
officer
officers
audit the same.
Laramie,
requirements of Article
meet
Lankford
1238, 1244
Wyoming Constitution —it was neither
to un-
by the claimants nor certified
signed
BURKE, Justice,
dissenting
filed a
affirm
We will
der
KITE, Justice,
opinion,
joined.
with which
for lack
order of dismissal
court’s
district
*3
jurisdiction. See Wooster v.
subject matter
BURKE, Justice, dissenting, with whom
County
Dist. No.
School
Carbon
KITE, Justice, joins.
(Wyo.2005), and the cases
P.3d 893
I dissent
I am convinced
[¶ 8]
because
Furthermore,
if mat-
even the
cited therein.
holding of
Florquist,
Beaulieu v.
not considered
ter was
(Beau
(Wyo.2004)
indisputably did not meet consti-
II), relating
jurisdic
to
lieu
was,
face,
on its
requirements and
tutional
tion,
retroactively applied
in
claim, thereby en-
governmental
a
invalid as
this case.
appellee
judgment as a matter
titling the
to
II,
In Beaulieu
this Court deter-
[¶ 9]
finally,
law.
Id. And
the district court
failure
comply
mined that a
to
with the exe-
inas-
appropriately
prejudice,
dismissed
Ar-
cution and certification
appel-
impossible
then
for the
much as was
§ 7 of the
ticle
mandatory
comply
filing
lants to
with the
jurisdiction
created a
defect.
§
Ann.
deadline of
holding,
specifically
In
over-
so
statute,
a
non-claim
which is
substantive
City
Cheyenne,
Martinez v.
ruled
limita-
procedural
statute of
rather than
fail-
P.2d 949
which held that a
Schell,
25-36,
Bell v.
tions.
properly verily
certify
govern-
to
ure
required by
claim as
mental
nothing
irregulari-
more
“is
than a defect or
Equity
II,
jurisdictional.”
ty that is not
Beaulieu
¶¶ 12-13.
Because the record on
is so
[¶ 6]
County
In Wooster
way
knowing
[¶ 10]
no
v. Carbon
sparse,
Dist. No.
P.3d 893
argu- School
estoppel and laches
appellants’
and,
so,
(Wyo.2005), this Court
to limit
they
declined
if
how
were raised below
ments
prospective application
Beaulieu II to
by the
sus-
district court. We
were treated
summary judgment against Mr.
dismissal,
affirmed
jurisdictional
pect, given the
he
comply
had failed to
Wooster
by that court.
they were not considered
decision,
justifying
with Article
Court,
equitable argu-
appellants’
stated:
the Court
supported largely by
to
ments
reference
attorney’s
setting forth
their
affidavit
The dissent contends that the erroneous
money spent
time
amount of
of Martinez should be
may
may
appellant’s
This affidavit
the instant case to
litigation.
save
court,
considered
the district
invalid
because Martinez was
have been
overruled until Beaulieu II in 2004.
in its decision. Be-
played
so,
decline to do
for three reasons.
agree
jurisdictional
dis-
cause
above,
appellant’s
as recited
notice of
missal,
equi-
will
further consider the
presented
appellee
sixteen
arguments.
table
I,
publication
months after the
where we
announced
CONCLUSION
valid, governmental claims had to be
the claimant and certified
complaint
in this action is
[¶ 7]
based
under the
an invalid
upon
That
Wooster, 18.
jurisdiction
deprived
fact
district court of
case,
Be-
upon
to consider the matter on the merits.
In this
facts
[¶ 11]
all essential
jurisdiction
can have
must be
cause we
no better
than which
court,
appeal.
predate
determined
we dismiss
(Beau
roactively principle must establish new summary, factually Wooster is law, prece- overruling past either clear distinguishable binding precedent and is not relied, litigants may dent on which have appli- respect the issue of retroactive by deciding impression an issue of first Appel- cation of Beaulieu II in this ease. whose resolution was not foreshad- three of the lants meet Second, it has owed. been stressed protec- and are Hanesworth test entitled to weigh ... demer- “we must the merits and application tion from retroactive by looking prior case its each to the II. of the The decision district court should history question, purpose the rule in be reversed. effect, oper- retrospective and whether operation.” further or
ation will retard its Walker, Linkletter [381 U.S. (1965) 1731, 1737, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 im- Finally, weighed inequity posed application, retroactive a decision of this could “[w]here Woost- 1. See the dissent in Wooster for further discus- as it of Beaulieu II. relates er, application sion of of the Hanesworth 28-50.