Opinion ID: 2507756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dismissal for Lack of an Appealable Order

Text: [¶12] During the appeal process, the Tanners filed a motion to dismiss with this court. This court denied the motion, without prejudice, allowing the Tanners to again address the issue in their appellate brief. The Tanners now assert that, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.05, Fox and TIC have failed to appeal from a final appealable order. The Tanners argue that the order appealed is an interlocutory order to which an application for a petition for writ of review under W.R.A.P. 13 applies. Hence, the Tanners claim that because Fox and TIC failed to follow the procedural rules and requirements for a petition for a writ of review, this appeal should be dismissed. [¶13] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-36-119 (LexisNexis 2003) (emphasis added), which is a part of Wyoming's Uniform Arbitration Act, specifies: ( a) An appeal may be taken from: (i) An order denying the application to compel arbitration; (ii) An order granting an application to stay arbitration; (iii) An order confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (iv) An order modifying or correcting an award; (v) An order vacating an award without directing a rehearing; or (vi) A final judgment or decree entered by the court. (b) The appeal shall be taken in the manner of a civil action. Our rules of appellate procedure contain no explicit procedure for appealing a denial of an application to compel arbitration. Additionally, this court has previously allowed a direct appeal from an order denying a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in the case of Jackson State Bank v. Homar, 837 P.2d 1081 (Wyo. 1992). Therefore, given the clear language contained within Wyo. Stat. § 1-36-119, the lack of any specific procedural direction for appellate review of a denial of an application to compel arbitration, and our own case precedent, we do not find the Tanners' argument to be persuasive.