Opinion ID: 2364766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the district court err in granting costs to the Kerseys?

Text: [¶ 23] We review an award of costs to the prevailing party for an abuse of discretion. Snyder v. Lovercheck, 2001 WY 64, ¶ 6, 27 P.3d 695, 697 (Wyo.2001). The award should be reasonable under the circumstances, and the ruling should be neither arbitrary nor capricious. Id. Costs were not recoverable at common law, and are governed by statute and court rule, with courts having no inherent authority to grant costs. 20 Am.Jur.2d Costs §§ 1, 2 (2005). In Wyoming, the court may award and tax costs and apportion them between the parties on the same or adverse sides as it deems right and equitable. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-126(a) (LexisNexis 2009). Allowable costs are determined pursuant to U.R.D.C. 501. [¶ 24] U.R.D.C. 501(a) mandates a particular procedure for seeking costs. First, the prevailing party must file an itemized certificate of costs within twenty days after entry of the final judgment allowing costs[.] U.R.D.C. 501(a)(1). If objections to the certificate of costs are not served within ten days of its service, the costs are taxed as set forth in the certificate. U.R.D.C. 501(a)(2). If objections are filed, the court is to consider the certificate and the objections, with or without a hearing, and then to tax costs. Id. [¶ 25] This procedure was followed in the instant case, with one consequential exception. On February 18, 2009, the district court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, as amended the following day, in which it ordered as follows: 5. The Kerseys, Rocky Mountain Timberlands and Howards are hereby awarded the repayment of costs of this action by the Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Bellis upon submission thereof. The Kerseys filed their certificate of costs on March 18, 2009, and the Bellises filed their objection on March 25, 2009. The district court heard the matter on October 23, 2009, and on November 2, 2009, entered its Order Awarding Costs to Plaintiffs Ronny and Peggy Kersey. The Bellises appealed from the February 18, 2009 order, the October 23, 2009 order, and the November 2, 2009 order. [¶ 26] The Bellises raised below, and here on appeal, numerous objections to the Kerseys' certificate of costs. We will discuss only one of those objections, which we find dispositive. U.R.D.C. 501(a)(1) requires a party seeking costs to file his or her itemized certificate of costs within twenty days after entry of the final judgment allowing costs. In the instant case, that phrase can only refer to the amended February 18, 2009 order that allowed costs to the Kerseys. The Kerseys did not file their certificate of costs within the required twenty days, but filed it twenty-seven days after entry of the order. There is no indication in U.R.D.C. 501 that this time limit is discretionary The district court should have granted the Bellises' objection to the certificate of costs on this basis. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the district court's final order awarding costs to the Kerseys. [¶ 27] In the hope of providing further guidance in regard to the timely filing of a certificate of costs, we will comment briefly upon the Kerseys' argument that, while conceding that their certificate was filed more than twenty days after the initial ruling, it was filed well before the hearing on trespass damages and well before the November 2, 2009 order, so it should be considered timely. We conclude to the contrary that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order entered on February 18, 2009, unquestionably was the final judgment allowing costs contemplated by U.R.D.C. 501. Because the Rule specifically contemplates the subsequent filing of objections, a subsequent hearing, and a subsequent ruling, the subsequent ruling cannot be considered the final judgment allowing costs. That interpretation of U.R.D.C. would permit the filing of a certificate of costs after such costs were determined. We do not read statutes or court rules so as to produce an absurd result. State v. Curtis, 2002 WY 120, ¶ 10, 51 P.3d 867, 870 (Wyo.2002) (no absurd results); MM v. State Dep't of Family Servs., 2009 WY 28, ¶ 11, 202 P.3d 409, 413 (Wyo.2009) (court rules and statutory construction).