Opinion ID: 2515364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [¶ 10] We start with Mr. Swires' claim that Mr. Cook did not file a timely notice of appeal of the district court's determination that the Colorado judgments were filed correctly under the UEFJA. The failure to file a timely notice of appeal from a final, appealable order deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Yeager v. Forbes, 2003 WY 134, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d 241, 247 (Wyo. 2003). See also, W.R.A.P. 1.03 and 2.01. Furthermore, when a party fails to timely appeal an appealable order, he cannot raise the issues decided in the order in a subsequent appeal. See, e.g., Yeager, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d at 246-47; Scott v. Sutphin, 2005 WY 38, ¶ 3, 109 P.3d 520 (Wyo. 2005). The existence of subject matter jurisdiction involves a question of law that may be raised at any time. See, e.g., Routh v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers Comp. Div., 952 P.2d 1108, 1114 (Wyo. 1998). Thus, if Mr. Swires' assertion is correct, we would not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Cook's first issue. [¶ 11] Mr. Cook challenged the validity of Mr. Claus' filing of the underlying foreign judgments in his petition to enjoin the execution sale. Mr. Swires argues the district court's October 17, 2007, order denying Mr. Cook's petition for an injunction was appealable and, since he did not appeal within 30 days of entry of the order as required by W.R.A.P. 2.01, we do not have jurisdiction to decide whether Mr. Claus properly filed the foreign judgments. This Court ruled long ago that an order granting or refusing an injunction is a final appealable order as a petition for injunctive relief invokes a special proceeding. Anderson v. Englehart, 18 Wyo. 196, 105 P. 571 (Wyo. 1909). Presently, W.R.A.P. 1.05(b) defines an appealable order as including an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding. It follows, therefore, that the denial of Mr. Cook's petition for an injunction was appealable under Rule 1.05 and, since he did not appeal it within 30 days after entry, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the district court's ruling on the validity of the foreign judgment filing. [¶ 12] Moreover, Mr. Swires argues that Lurie v. Blackwell, 2002 WY 110, 51 P.3d 846 (Wyo. 2002) supports his argument that the district court's order denying Mr. Cook's petition for an injunction was appealable. In Lurie, the judgment debtor's wife filed a petition to quash execution against property she claimed belonged to the couple as tenants by the entirety. We considered her appeal from the district court's order denying the petition to quash. Although the issue was not raised there, we treated the denial of the petition to quash as a final appealable order. Id., ¶ 6, 51 P.3d at 848. See also, Steffens v. Smith, 477 P.2d 119 (Wyo. 1970) and Lawer Auto Supply Co. v. Teton Auto Co., 284 P. 1001 (Wyo. 1930) (deciding appeals from denials of motions to quash writs of execution). Arguably, Mr. Cook's petition for an injunction to stop the execution sale was analogous to a motion to quash and the district court's denial was, consequently, a final appealable order. We conclude, therefore, the order denying the injunction was appealable, and, because Mr. Cook failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the district court's order, we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's decision on the validity of Mr. Claus' filings under the UEFJA. [¶ 13] What is more, the petition for injunctive relief was the second time the issue had been raised and decided in the district court. Earlier, Mr. Cook had filed a motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint, arguing the 2000 filing of the judgments was inadequate because of Mr. Claus' failure to file an affidavit setting forth the judgment creditor's and debtors' names and last known addresses. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that Mr. Claus had substantially complied with the statute by filing the certificate of mailing. [¶ 14] Typically, a denial of a motion to dismiss is not appealable. See, e.g., Gooden v. State, 711 P.2d 405 (Wyo. 1985). However, in Hill v. Value Recovery Group, L.P., 964 P.2d 1256 (Wyo. 1998), this Court reviewed the district court's denial of the judgment debtor's motion to dismiss and set aside a foreign judgment. There was no argument or discussion in Hill indicating the court's order denying the motion to dismiss was not an appealable order. Thus, Hill indicates that such an order is appealable. [¶ 15] Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that Mr. Cook had ample opportunity to litigate the validity of Mr. Claus' filing of the Colorado judgments in his motion to dismiss and petition for an injunction. He did not appeal the district court's determination on that issue until after the execution sale. Because Mr. Cook failed on one and perhaps two occasions to timely appeal from a final appealable order deciding the issue, he lost his opportunity to do so. We conclude, therefore, that we do not have jurisdiction to consider his claim regarding the improper filing of the foreign judgments.