Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF GLP, GWP V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-07-0182

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE INTEREST OF GLP, GWP V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2007 WY 141166 P.3d 1284Case Number: S-07-0182Decided: 08/30/2007
April 
Term, A.D. 2007

 
 
IN 
THE INTEREST OF 
GLP,GWP,Appellant(Respondent),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 
SERVICES,Appellee(Petitioner).

 

 
 

[¶1]      This matter came 
before the Court upon its own motion following a review of recently docketed 
appeals.  This Court finds that it 
is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  On December 7, 2006, the district 
court entered an "Order After Dispositional Hearing."  On 
December 15, 2006, Appellant filed (1) a Motion to Alter or Amend Order After 
Final Dispositional Hearing and (2) a Motion for Appointment of New Guardian Ad 
Litem.  Although Appellant's motion 
to alter or amend tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal to challenge the 
Order After Dispositional hearing, such tolling is not indefinite.  "The full time for appeal commences to 
run and is to be computed from the entry of any order granting or denying a 
motion. . . . If no order is entered, the full time for appeal commences to run 
when any such motion is deemed denied."  
W.R.A.P. 2.02(b).  

 
 
[¶2]      Pursuant to 
W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2), the motion to alter or amend would be deemed denied after 90 
days, in this case March 15, 2007.  
Effective March 1, 2007, W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2) was amended to permit a 
district court to continue its determination on a motion to alter amend.  However, such "continuation may not 
exceed 60 days from the expiration of the initial 90 day period."  By order entered March 13, 2007, the 
district court continued its determination on the motion to alter or amend.  With 60 days added to the initial 90 day 
period, Appellant's motion to alter or amend was deemed denied, at the latest, 
on May 14, 2007.  On June 22, 2007, 
the district court entered its "Order Denying [GWP's] Motion to Alter or Amend 
the Order After Final Disposition and Denying [GWP's] Motion for Appointment of 
a New Guardian Ad Litem."  On July 
16, 2007, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the June 
22nd order.  This Court 
finds that the notice of appeal was untimely as to the Order After Dispositional 
Hearing.  Appellant's motion to 
alter or amend was deemed denied, at the latest, on May 14, 2007.  Thus, Appellant's July 16th notice of appeal was untimely.  W.R.A.P. 2.01.    

 
 
[¶3]      In addition, 
although Appellant's notice of appeal is timely with respect to the order 
denying his motion to alter or amend, that order is not appealable.  In a number of cases, this Court has 
held that "[a]n order denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable 
order."  Rutledge v. 
Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350, 351 (Wyo. 1977); 
Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown, 387 P.2d 1004, 1006 (Wyo. 1964).  This is because "[e]rror lies to the 
judgment, but not to the decision of the motion; though that decision may be 
made a ground for the reversal of the judgment."  Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 
193 P. 520, 521, 27 Wyo. 72 (Wyo. 1920) (quoting Young v. Shallenberger, 
53 Ohio St. 291, 41 N. E. 518)).  
The same rule applies to an order denying a motion to alter or 
amend.  Parker v. Kahin, 758 P.2d 570, 570-71 
(Wyo. 
1988).  Because Appellant's notice 
of appeal does not identify an appealable order, this Court finds that this 
appeal, to the extent it seeks to challenge the denial of the motion to alter or 
amend, must be dismissed.  Scott v. Sutphin, 2005 WY 38, 109 P.3d 520 (Wyo. 2005).  

 
 
[¶4]      Finally, the 
Court finds that the order denying Appellant's motion for appointment of new 
guardian ad litem for the child is not an appealable order.  This Court finds that the order does not 
qualify as an "order affecting a substantial right made in a special 
proceeding."  W.R.A.P. 1.05(b).  It is, therefore, 

 
 

[¶5]      
ORDERED that the captioned 
appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed; and it is further

 
 

[¶6]      ordered that this Order shall be published in the Wyoming 
Reporter and the Pacific Reporter.

 
 
            
DATED this 28th day of August, 2007.

 
 

BY THE COURT:

 
 
 
 
/s/ Barton R. Voigt                

BARTON R. 
VOIGT

Chief 
Justice