Opinion ID: 2581176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Confirmation of Foreclosure Sale

Text: [¶18] While PBS's initial appeal was pending before this Court, CWC proceeded with the foreclosure sale. It then filed a motion asking the district court to confirm the foreclosure sale and enter a deficiency judgment against PBS. The district court granted the motion. In PBS's second appeal, it asserts that the district court did not have jurisdiction over CWC's motion because of the pending appeal. PBS refers to W.R.A.P. 6.01(b), which provides as follows: The appellate court shall acquire jurisdiction over the matters appealed when the case is docketed. In all cases, the trial court retains jurisdiction over all matters and proceedings not the subject of the appeal. [¶19] Our cases applying this rule often involve domestic relations issues. We have held that a district court retains jurisdiction to determine permanent guardianship even while its decision on temporary guardianship was under appeal, In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, ¶ 13 n.6, 138 P.3d 1145, 1150 n.6 (Wyo. 2006), and that a district court retains jurisdiction to consider visitation and support even though its decision establishing paternity was under appeal. In re Paternity of IC, 941 P.2d 46, 50-51 (Wyo. 1997). In Moore v. Moore, 809 P.2d 255, 258 (Wyo. 1991), we stated that a district court has the right and the power, during the pendency of an appeal, to enforce its decree and to protect the parties as to any rights which the decree gave to them. [¶20] In this case, the district court retained the right and the power to enforce its decree that CWC was entitled to foreclose against PBS, even though that decision had been appealed. Significantly, PBS did not seek to stay the district court's order, as it could have done pursuant to W.R.C.P. 62(d). Absent such a stay, the district court did not exceed its authority to enforce the judgment by confirming the foreclosure sale and entering a deficiency judgment against PBS.