Title: SANDRA STERANKO v. DANIELLE DUNKS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SANDRA STERANKO v. DANIELLE DUNKS2009 WY 9199 P.3d 1096Case Number: No. S-09-0008Decided: 01/29/2009
October 
Term, A.D. 2008

 
 

SANDRA 
STERANKO,Petitioner,v.DANIELLE 
DUNKS,Respondent.

 
 
Order 
Granting Petition For Writ of Review

 
 
 
 

[¶1]      This 
matter 
came before the Court upon a "Petition for Writ of Review," filed herein January 
12, 2009.  After a careful review of 
the petition, the materials attached thereto, the Response to Petition for Writ 
of Review, and the file, this Court finds it appropriate to rule on this matter 
without further briefing.  This 
Court finds and rules as follows.  

 
 

[¶2]      This 
case arises from civil litigation in the Fifth Judicial District, Park County, 
Civil Docket No. 24693.  Petitioner 
seeks review of the district court's "Motion to Reconsider Decision Letter," 
which was filed on January 9, 2009.  
In the decision letter, the district court indicated it would deny 
"Plaintiff's [Petitioner's] Motion to Revise Ruling Denying Continuance and 
Limiting Testimony."  The district 
court wrote:  "[Petitioner] asks the 
Court to reconsider its previous Decision Letter, dated December 16, 2008.  Such a motion is a nullity in Wyoming, 
as explained in Plymale v. Donnelly, 
2006 WY 3, 125 P.3d 1022 (Wyo. 2006)."  
Petitioner challenges the quoted portion of the district court's 
ruling.

 
 

[¶3]      Preliminarily, 
this Court observes that W.R.A.P. 13 was designed for interlocutory review of 
orders, not revisable decision letters.  W.R.A.P. 13.02.  However, any problem in that regard was 
alleviated when the district court, on January 26, 2009, entered its "Order 
Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Revise Ruling Denying Continuance and Limiting 
Testimony," which incorporates the Motion to Reconsider Decision Letter.  

 
 

[¶4]      Turning to the 
merits, this Court concludes that the district court's application of Plymale 
v. Donnelly, 
2006 WY 3, 125 P.3d 1022 (Wyo. 2006) was error.  In that case, this Court wrote:  "Henceforth, we will enforce the Wyoming 
Rules of Civil Procedure as written and consider postjudgment motions for 
reconsideration, so denominated, a nullity.  To the extent any prior opinion suggests 
otherwise, it is expressly hereby overruled."  Id. at ¶ 7, 125 P.2d  at 1024.  

 
 

[¶5]      This 
Plymale court emphasized that 
post-judgment motions are critical to the timing of an appeal.  The court wrote:

 
 
We 
acknowledge that, in prior appeals, we have reviewed the substance of motions 
for reconsideration in order to determine whether the motion serves as the 
functional equivalent of an authorized motion that defers the start of the 
appeal period. . . .

 
 
[T]he 
past practice of recognizing motions for reconsideration, besides being 
inefficient, has produced inconsistent results, with the right to appeal hanging 
in the balance.  Filing an 
authorized motion for postjudgment relief will eliminate uncertainty for all 
involved.  The filing by aggrieved 
parties of a motion that is properly designated under the rule authorizing the 
motion, such as Rule 50, 52 or 59, will ensure full appellate rights are 
preserved.

 
 

Id. 
at ¶ ¶ 6, 9, 125 P.2d  at 1024, 1025; see 
also W.R.A.P. 2.02(a).  

 
 

[¶6]      This Court 
concludes that the rule of Plymale 
should 
not be extended to pre-judgment motions to reconsider.  First, the concerns with respect to 
appeals, as expressed in Plymale, are 
not present with pre-judgment motions to reconsider.  Second, this Court finds that 
recognizing such motions is consistent with a district court's traditional 
authority to revise its rulings prior to final judgment.  See Broadhead v. Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731, 
733 (Wyo. 1987) ("[I]f a trial court in exercise of its discretion may modify 
tentative decisions until entry of the final order, it does not err in rendering 
a decree with changed provisions.").  
Therefore, this Court holds that pre-judgment motions to reconsider, 
whether denominated as such or not, are valid in Wyoming.

 
 

[¶7]      Finally, 
with respect to Petitioner's Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings, this 
Court finds the motion should be denied.  
Trial in this matter is set to begin February 2, 2009.  This Court does not intend to disrupt 
the district court's schedule.  
Given the timing of this order, this Court believes that the district 
court will have sufficient time to consider, prior to trial, "Plaintiff's Motion 
to Revise Ruling Denying Continuance and Limiting Testimony."  Thus, this Court sees no need for a 
stay.  It is, therefore,   

            

[¶8]      
ORDERED 
that the Petition for Writ of Review, filed herein January 12, 2009, be, and 
hereby is, granted; and it is further

 
 

[¶9]      ORDERED 
that 
the district court's January 26, 2009, "Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to 
Revise Ruling Denying Continuance and Limiting Testimony," be, and hereby is, 
reversed and vacated; and it is further

 
 

[¶10]   ORDERED 
that this matter is remanded to the district court with direction that the 
district court consider, on its merits, "Plaintiff's Motion to Revise Ruling 
Denying Continuance and Limiting Testimony;" and it is 
further

 
 

[¶11]   ORDERED 
that Petitioner's Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings, filed herein 
January 12, 2009, be and hereby is, denied.

 
 

DATED 
this 29th day of January, 
2009.

 
 
                                                                        
BY THE COURT:

 
 
                                                                        
/s/ William U. Hill                              

                                                                        
WILLIAM U. HILL

            
                                                                        
Justice