Opinion ID: 1172264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Security of Costs

Text: Mother contends that, pursuant to W.S. 1-14-120 (1988), the district court had a nondiscretionary duty to order security of costs from the nonresident Father. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993). We review all parts of a legislative act as a whole, and division of a law into sections has no substantive meaning. V-1 Oil Co. v. State, 934 P.2d 740, 745 (Wyo.1997) ( citing France v. Connor, 3 Wyo. 445, 454, 27 P. 569, 572 (1891)). Wyoming Statute 1-14-120 provides that [i]f security for costs is not given as required by W.S. 1-14-119    the court shall    on a motion of the defendant and notice to the plaintiff, dismiss the action   . The phrase as required by W.S. 1-14-119 indicates a limit on the application of -120. Section 1-14-119 gives discretion to the clerk to decide what amount is reasonable for security of costs: If a nonresident of the state    brings an action, the plaintiff must furnish sufficient security for costs    such sum of money as the clerk deems sufficient for the purpose. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the deposit to be increased, that personal security be given or that the nonresident plaintiff pay all costs as fast as they accrue. Reading -120 in conjunction with -119, the plain language demonstrates that the court does not have a duty to dismiss the action unless the clerk has required, and the plaintiff has not complied with, the posting of security. The court may require a deposit, upon motion by the defendant under -119, but this is clearly discretionary. In the instant case, the clerk did not require Father to post security for costs.