Title: Hoblyn v. Goins

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Hoblyn v. Goins1999 WY 48977 P.2d 1281Case Number: 97-355Decided: 04/29/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

GARY 
HOBLYN and ROGER KOCH, (Appellants) (Defendants),

 

v.

 

JEFFREY GOINS and JENNIFER GOINS, 
(Appellees) (Plaintiffs).

 

                                 

 

Appeal from the District Court 
of Laramie County Honorable Edward

L. Grant, Judge.

 

     Bernard Q. Phelan of 
Phelan-Watson Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Representing 
Appellants.

      Dale W. Cottam and 
Boyd M. McMaster of Hirst & Applegate, P. C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by 
Mr. Cottam, Representing Appellee.

 

     Before LEHMAN, 
C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* JJ.

    * 
Chief Justice at time of oral argument; retired November 2, 
1998.

 

     Golden, 
Justice.

    
[¶1]     This case arose out of a claim of lien 
by Appellant Gary Hoblyn (Hoblyn) against property owned by Appellees Jennifer 
and Jeffrey Goins (the Goinses). After receiving a notice of lien, the Goinses 
filed a "Petition for Relief Under Wyo. Stat. § 29-1-311" against Hoblyn and 
Roger Koch to set aside the lien.  
Following a hearing, the district court entered an order in favor of the 
Goinses, striking Hoblyn's claim of lien and granting the relief authorized by 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311. Hoblyn and Koch appeal from that 
order.

   

   [¶2]     Upon review of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
29-1-311, we find that the statute requires a recorded claim of lien. Generally, 
liens on personal property do not require a lien statement or recordation unless 
the lienor relinquishes possession of the property. Hoblyn did not file a lien 
statement or record his claim of lien.  Therefore, the statute does not apply to this 
particular situation, and the district court erred when it granted relief 
pursuant to the statute.

 

   [¶3]     We reverse.

 

                                
ISSUES

 

   [¶4]     Appellants Hoblyn and Koch present a 
single issue for our review:

 

            Was the 
lower court's order applying W.S. § 29-1-311 clearly erroneous when there was 
no evidence that a lien statement 
had been recorded or filed?

 

     Appellees, the 
Goinses, submit this statement of the issues:

 

            I. Should the supreme 
court reverse the trial court's decision on the issue of whether or not 
there was a recorded claim of lien 
when the appellants raise the issue for the first time on 
appeal?

 

            II. Should the supreme 
court reverse the trial court's decision where the appellants have failed 
to present sufficient evidence to 
warrant reversal?

 

                                 
FACTS1

 

      [¶5]            
  In the spring of 1997, the 
Goinses sold their home to Appellant Roger Koch. The Goinses asked Koch for 
permission to leave their 1965 Ford Mustang on the property until they repaired 
a trailer to remove the vehicle. The Goinses understood that Koch would allow 
them to leave the vehicle on his property until they were able to retrieve it. Koch did not indicate that he 
expected to be paid any storage fees for allowing the Goinses to leave the 
vehicle on his property.

 

   [¶6]     In August of 1997, the Goinses received 
a letter from Hoblyn, informing them that he had possession of the vehicle and 
that the storage fees were past due. When the Goinses contacted Koch about the 
letter, Koch informed them that he no longer had the vehicle and that they 
should contact Hoblyn. Hoblyn had an unlisted telephone number, and the Goinses were unable to 
contact him.  Hoblyn did not make 
any other attempts to contact the Goinses and subsequently published a notice of 
sale in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle newspaper announcing that the vehicle would be 
sold to the highest bidder at 6:00 a.m. on October 15, 
1997.

 

   [¶7]     The Goinses testified that they did not 
agree to pay either Koch or Hoblyn the $50 towing fee or $30 per day storage fee 
that Hoblyn demanded in his August 15, 1997, letter to the Goinses.  Although Hoblyn testified that he 
overheard a telephone conversation between Mrs. Goins and Koch, during which 
Mrs. Goins agreed to pay storage fees 
for the vehicle, Koch testified that he had no agreement with the Goinses for 
storage of the vehicle and he was unaware of any agreement between the Goinses 
and Hoblyn for storage of the vehicle.

 

   [¶8]     The Goinses subsequently filed a 
petition with the district court entitled "Petition for Relief Under Wyo. Stat. 
§ 29-1-311."  After a hearing, the 
district court issued an order finding that the Goinses did not agree to pay 
Koch or Hoblyn for storage of the vehicle. The court also determined that Koch 
and Hoblyn knew that the Goinses had not 
agreed to pay for storage of the vehicle and that the "statement of lien, 
published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle . . . contains a material misstatement in 
that the claimed lien amount of $2,800 has no relation to any reasonable storage 
charge which [Koch and Hoblyn] would be entitled to even if an agreement existed." Because Koch and Hoblyn knew, at 
the time of publishing the lien statement in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, that the 
lien was groundless and contained a material misstatement, the court ordered the 
claimed lien stricken and released. The district court also ordered Koch and 
Hoblyn to release the vehicle to the 
Goinses and to pay the Goinses $1,927.50, which represented "$1,000 statutory 
damages as authorized by Wyo. Stat. § 29-1-311(b)(iv), together with costs of 
$35.00 and $892.50 in attorneys' fees." Koch and Hoblyn appeal from that 
order.

 

                              
DISCUSSION

 

   [¶9]     We are asked to determine whether Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311 applies to the factual situation presented. The statute in 
question provides:

 

            (a) Any claim of lien 
against a federal, state or local official or employee based on the 
performance or nonperformance of 
that official's or employee's duties shall be invalid unless accompanied by 
a specific order from a court of 
competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or unless 
a specific statute authorizes the 
filing of the lien.

 

            (b) Any person whose 
real or personal property is subject to a recorded claim of lien who 
believes the claim of lien is 
invalid under subsection (a) of this section, was forged, or that the person 
claiming the lien knew at the time of 
filing the lien was roundless, contained a material misstatement or false 
claim, may petition the district court of the county in which the claim of lien 
has been recorded for the relief provided in this subsection. The petition shall state 
the grounds upon which relief is requested, and shall be supported by the affidavit of the petitioner or 
his attorney setting forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the motion is based. The clerk 
of court shall assign a cause number to the petition and obtain from the petitioner a filing fee of 
thirtyfive dollars ($ 35.00). Upon the filing of the petition the following 
shall apply:

 

         
               
(i) The court may enter its order, which may be granted ex parte, 
directing the person claiming the 
lien to appear before the court at a time no earlier than six (6) nor 
later than fifteen (15) days 
following the date of service of the petition and order on the 
person claiming the lien, and show 
cause, if any, why the relief provided in this subsection 
should not be 
granted;

 

(ii) The order shall clearly state that if the person 
claiming the lien fails to appear at the time and place noted, the claim of lien 
shall be stricken and released, and that the person claiming the lien shall be 
ordered to pay damages of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or actual 
damages, whichever is greater, and the costs incurred by the petitioner, 
including reasonable attorneys' fees;

 

         
               
* * *

 

         
               
(iv) If, following a hearing on the matter the court determines that the 
claim of lien is invalid under 
subsection (a) of this section, was forged or that the person claiming the 
lien knew at the time of filing the 
lien was groundless or contained a material misstatement or false claim, the court shall issue an order 
striking and releasing the claim of lien and awarding damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) 
or actual damages, whichever is greater, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the 
petitioner to be paid by the person                       
claiming the lien;

 

(v) 
If the court determines that the claim of lien is valid, the court shall issue 
an order so stating and shall award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the 
person claiming the lien to be paid by the petitioner.

 

   
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311 (Michie 1997) (emphasis 
added).

 

   [¶10]  Statutory interpretation is a question 
of law and is reviewed de novo. Corkill v. Knowles, 955 P.2d 438, 440 (Wyo. 
1998). We summarized our rules of statutory construction in General Chemical 
Corp. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 819 P.2d 418, 420 (Wyo. 1991), and 
reiterated them in Laramie County Bd. of 
Equalization v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1189 (Wyo. 
1996):

 

            [T]his 
court looks only to the intent of the legislature when enforcing or construing 
statutes.  * * * Legislative 
intent must be ascertained initially and primarily from the words used in 
the statute. * * * If the language 
selected by the legislature is sufficiently definitive, that 
language establishes the rule of 
law. Any additional construction can be resorted to only if the 
wording is ambiguous or unclear to 
the point of demonstrating obscurity with respect to the legislative purpose 
or mandate. * * * We previously 
have articulated the proposition that a statute is ambiguous only if 
it is found to be vague or 
uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. The converse of this 
proposition is that the statute is 
unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to 
agree as to its meaning with 
consistency and predictability.  The 
question of whether an ambiguity exists in a    
statute is a matter of law to be determined by the 
court.

 

Id. (citations omitted). "It 
is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that all portions of an act 
must be read in pari materia, and every word, clause, and sentence must be 
construed so that no part is inoperative or superfluous." Corkill, 955 P.2d  at 
444. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311 clearly requires the property to be "subject to 
a recorded claim of lien" or the filing of a lien which was "groundless, 
contained a material misstatement or 
false claim." Appellees suggest that we ignore the portion of the statute which 
requires recordation of the claim of lien. This we cannot 
do.

 

   [¶11]  In fact, the statute also provides that 
the person Amay petition the district court of the county in which the claim of 
lien has been recorded for the relief provided in this subsection."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311(b) (Michie 
1997). Without recordation of the claim of lien, it is not possible to "petition 
the district court of the county in which the claim of lien has been recorded." 
The district court is without jurisdiction unless the claim of lien has been 
recorded.

 

   [¶12]  The Goinses argue that Hoblyn and Koch 
failed to raise the recordation issue in the proceedings before the district 
court.  "This court generally 
refuses to consider issues not presented to the district court and then raised 
for the first time on appeal.  
"Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521, 526 (Wyo. 1994) (citing Iberlin 
v. TCI Cablevision of Wyoming, Inc. 855 P.2d 716, 728 (Wyo. 1993)).  
However, we make exceptions for "jurisdictional issues and issues 
involving certain fundamental matters." Id. (citing Dennis v. Dennis, 
675 P.2d 265, 266 (Wyo. 1984)). As noted 
above, the district court is without jurisdiction to provide relief pursuant to 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311 unless the claim of lien has been 
recorded.

 

                              
CONCLUSION

 

   [¶13]  Absent recording or filing of a lien 
statement, the district court does not have jurisdiction to apply the relief 
provided by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-311 (Michie 1997). Although sympathy for the 
lienees in this matter is certainly understandable, given the circumstances 
under which the lienors purported to obtain the lien, the Goinses must seek 
other relief from the district court.

          

FOOTNOTES

  1No verbatim record of the hearing 
was kept in this matter. Our review is limited to the Statement of Evidence 
approved by the district court pursuant to W. R. A. P. 
3.03.