Am. Collection Sys., Inc. v. Judkins

550 P.3d 549

2024 WY 66

AMERICAN COLLECTION SYSTEMS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Appellant Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor),

v.Lacy D. JUDKINS f/k/a Lacy D. Berkel, Appellee (Defendant/Judgment Debtor).

S-23-0216

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 18, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, The Honorable Misha E. Westby, Judge

Representing Appellant: A. Joe Hageman, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Lacy D. Judkins, pro se.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ^*, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

FENN, Justice.

[¶1] American Collection Systems, Inc. (ACS) filed a motion to revive a dormant judgment. The district court issued an Order for Revival of Judgment (underlying judgment) that revived the dormant judgment but declined to award post-judgment interest. ACS filed a motion to alter or amend the underlying judgment to include the post-judgment interest. The district court issued an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Amended Order of Revival (post-judgment order) which denied ACS’s motion. ACS appeals claiming the district court was required as a matter of law to award post-judgment interest. We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶2] ACS raises three issues, which we rephrase and consolidate into a single issue:

I. Did the district court err as a matter of law in failing to allow post-judgment interest which accrued between the entry of the judgment and the date the judgment became dormant?

However, because ACS’s notice of appeal only designated the post-judgment order as the order being appealed, we raise the following issues:

II. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment?

III. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied ACS’s motion to alter or amend the underlying judgment?

FACTS

[¶3] On October 20, 2010, the district court awarded ACS a default judgment against Lacy D. Berkel, aka Lacy D. Judkins (Ms. Judkins). When ACS failed to execute on that judgment for more than five years, it became dormant under Wyoming Statute § 1-17-307 (LexisNexis 2021). In December 2022, ACS filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 1-16-502 (LexisNexis 2021). The district court held a hearing on the motion in June 2023, where Ms. Judkins responded to the motion. On July 7, 2023, the district court entered an Order for Revival of Judgment (underlying judgment) in which it revived the dormant judgment but declined to impose post-judgment interest that accrued from the date the judgment was entered until it became dormant. Although the hearing was not reported, the district court’s order indicates Ms. Judkins alleged the district court should deny the motion to revive the judgment because ACS failed to make diligent collection efforts. Instead of denying the motion to revive, the district court found ACS’s lack of collection efforts constituted good cause to deny post-judgment interest:

[ACS] filed a Motion for Entry of Revival of Judgment with supporting Affidavit and having reviewed the supplemental pleadings, the [c]ourt finds good cause to revive the original Judgment but not to order interest or costs given the information provided by [Ms. Judkins] about her location during the time in question and the fact that [ACS] acknowledges this issue to some extent seeking interest only to the date of dormancy.

[¶4] Rather than filing an appeal, ACS filed a motion to alter or amend the underlying judgment on July 25, 2023. The motion stated it was being filed under Rules 59(e) and "60(a)(6)" of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.). The motion did not include the standard for granting a motion under either W.R.C.P. 59(e) or 60. Instead, it contained only a brief recitation of the law applicable to post-judgment interest and stated: "Simply put, as a matter of law, post-judgment interest is mandatory until a judgment becomes dormant and the award of post-judgment interest is beyond the discretion of this [c]ourt." ACS asked the district court to enter an amended order for revival of judgment that included the post-judgment interest.

[¶5] The district court entered an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Amended Order of Revival (post-judgment order) on August 2, 2023, which denied ACS’s motion after finding there was no good cause to grant it. ACS filed its notice of appeal on September 1, 2023. The notice of appeal specifically identified the order being appealed as: "the Second Judicial District Court’s Order on Motion for Amended Order of Revival, entered August 2nd, 2023 in the above captioned matter."

DISCUSSION

I. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment?

[1, 2] [¶6] ACS asserts it took this appeal from both the underlying judgment entered on July 7, 2023, and the post-judgment order entered on August 2, 2023. Ms. Judkins did not file a brief. Although the parties did not raise the issue of whether we have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment, we may do so sua sponte. Davidson-Eaton v. Iversen, 2021 WY 49, ¶ 9, 484 P.3d 23, 24-25 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Edsall v. Moore, 2016 WY 71, ¶ 10, 375 P.3d 799, 801 (Wyo. 2016)) (recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction can be raised by the Court at any time). "Whether we have jurisdiction is a question of law we consider de novo." Id at ¶ 9, 484 P.3d at 25 (citing Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp., 2021 WY 17, ¶ 28, 479 P.3d 1222, 1231 (Wyo. 2021)).

[3, 4] [¶7] Rule 1.03(a) of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure (W.R.AP.) explicitly provides "[t]he timely filing of a notice of appeal, which complies with Rule 2.07(a), is jurisdictional." To comply with W.R.A.P 2.07(a)(2), a party’s notice of appeal must " Identity the judgment or appealable order’ being appealed." EOG Res. Inc., v. JJLM Land, LLC, 2022 WY 162, ¶ 41, 522 P.3d 605, 616 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Painovich v. Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 11, 216 P.3d 501, 504 (Wyo. 2009)). "A notice of appeal ‘only perfects an appeal of the order(s) identified in the notice.’ " Id (quoting Evans v. Moyer, 2012 WY 111, ¶ 18, 282 P.3d 1203, 1209 (Wyo. 2012)). If an order is not properly identified in the notice of appeal, this Court is "without jurisdiction" to review it. Id. at ¶¶ 41-43, 522 P.3d at 616-17.

[5, 6] [¶8] Although ACS could have identified both orders in its notice of appeal, it only identified the post-judgment order as the order being appealed. We have recognized interlocutory orders merge into final orders, and a notice of appeal that names the final judgment is sufficient to support review of earlier orders. See In re RR, 2021 WY 85, ¶ 66, 492 P.3d 246, 264 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Kruckenberg v. Ding Masters, Inc., 2008 WY 40, ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 895, 899 (Wyo. 2008)). However, in this case, the underlying judgment was a final appealable order under W.R.AP. 1.05 because it affected a substantial right, determined the merits of the controversy, and resolved all outstanding issues. Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd, 2021 WY 17, ¶ 29, 479 P.3d at 1231 (citations omitted). Therefore, it did not merge into the post-judgment order. There were two separate orders, either or both of which could have been appealed. We must decide if listing only the post-judgment order in the notice of appeal gives us jurisdiction over the underlying judgment.

[7–11] [¶9] The purpose of a notice of appeal "is to acquaint the appellee and the appellate court with the fact that an appeal has been taken from a specific judgment in a particular case." Gunther v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 255 F.2d 710, 717 (4th Cir. 1958).¹ Federal courts liberally construe notices of appeal. See, e.g., Raley v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd, 642 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir. 2011). Although we have not used this phrase, we approved of liberally construing notices of appeal in Pfeil v. State, where we said: "even if a notice fails to properly designate the order from which the appeal is taken, this Court has jurisdiction if the appellant’s intention was clear." 2014 WY 137, ¶ 12, 336 P.3d 1206, 1210 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1253-54 (10th Cir. 2007)). Our goal is to determine whether the notice "serve[s] the purpose of providing notice to other parties and the [C]ourt." Id (citing Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S. Ct. 678, 682, 116 L. Ed. 2d 678 (1992)). "A mistake in designating the judgment appealed from is not always fatal, so long as the intent to appeal from a specific ruling can fairly be inferred by probing the notice and the other party was not misled or prejudiced." Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1074 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 67 n.21, 98 S. Ct. 2170, 2180 n.21, 57 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1978)). However, we cannot waive W.R.AP. 2.07(a)’s jurisdictional requirements by addressing arguments and issues that are not properly before us. See EOG Res. Inc., 2022 WY 162, ¶ 43, 522 P.3d at 617; Woodward v. Valvoda, 2021 WY 5, ¶ 35, 478 P.3d 1189, 1202 (Wyo. 2021); Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶¶ 10-11, 216 P.3d at 504.²

[12] [¶10] ACS’s notice of appeal specifically described the order being appealed as the "Order on Motion for Amended Order of Revival, entered August 2nd, 2023[.]" Even construing ACS’s notice liberally, it only provided notice of ACS’s intent to appeal the post-judgment order. The specificity with which ACS identified the order indicates appealing only the post-judgment order was not a technical mistake. See Shuler v. Garrison, 718 Fed. Appx. 825, 828 (11th Cir. 2017). Although the appendix to ACS’s notice of appeal lists the underlying judgment and several other orders in compliance with W.R.A.P. 2.07(b)(2),³ there is nothing in the notice of appeal illustrating an intent to appeal the underlying judgment. Because the notice of appeal cannot be construed as providing notice of ACS’s intent to appeal the underlying judgment, ACS failed to properly perfect its appeal of that order. We are without jurisdiction to consider the underlying judgment, and we are unable to consider any claims or arguments...