Wooster v. Carbon County School Dist No. 14/14/2005
VOIGT, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court; BURKE, Justice, filed a dissenting opinion, with which KITE, Justice, joined.
[ ] The district court granted summary judgment to the appellee in this negligence action because the appellant's notice of governmental claim did not meet constitutional and statutory requirements. We agree and dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ISSUES
[ ] The dispositive issues in this appeal may be stated as follows:
1. Does the district court have subject matter jurisdiction in a Wyoming Governmental Claims Act case where the claim does not meet the requirements of Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution?
2. Can a defective notice of claim presented within the two-year period of limitation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-113(a) (LexisNexis 2003) be cured by presentment of a non-defective notice of claim after that period has passed?
3. Is the holding of Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 8, 86 P.3d 863, 866 (Wyo. 2004) (Beaulieu II) that governmental claims, when presented, must meet the requirements of Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution, to be applied prospectively only?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our standard of review of summary judgments is well known and will not be repeated here. See Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2001 WY 33, 8-10, 20 P.3d 521, 525-26 (Wyo. 2001) (Beaulieu I).
DISCUSSION
[ ] The material facts are undisputed. On September 18, 2001, the appellant was driving a tractor-trailer that collided with a school bus driven by the appellee's employee. On July 16, 2002, the appellant presented to the appellee a notice of claim alleging injuries and damage resulting from the collision. The notice of claim was signed only by the appellant's counsel. On November 4, 2002, the appellant filed a complaint in district court alleging, inter alia, presentment of the notice of claim.
[ ] On March 25, 2004, this Court issued its decision in Beaulieu II. On the following day, the appellee filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the appellant had not signed his notice of claim and it was not signed under penalty of perjury. The appellant responded on March 31, 2004, by presenting to the appellee an amended notice of claim, duly signed by the appellant and certified under penalty of perjury. Clearly, the amended notice of claim was presented more than two years after the date of the collision.
[ ] Further detailed analysis of this case is unnecessary. The ruling of the district court is correct. The law is as follows: (1) when presented to the governmental entity, a notice of claim must be signed by the claimant and certified under penalty of perjury, as required by the Wyoming Constitution; (2) such presentment, and the allegation thereof, is a condition precedent to suit and is, therefore, jurisdictional; (3) the limitation period of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113(a) is not a mere procedural statute of limitations, but is a jurisdictional non-claim statute, meaning that a defective notice of claim cannot be cured via the relation-back doctrine by presentment of a non-defective notice of claim after the period has passed; (4) the holding in Beaulieu II that a notice of claim must meet the requirements of Article 16, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution is not applied prospectively only, because such has always been the law, as was stated in Beaulieu I, three years earlier. See Bell v. Schell, 2004 WY 153, 10-11, 16-36, 101 P.3d 465, 468, 469-76 (Wyo. 2004); Yoak v. Ide, 2004 WY 32, 6, 86 P.3d 872, 874 (Wyo. 2004); Beaulieu II, 2004 WY 31, 6-15, 86 P.3d at 866-69; and Beaulieu I, 2001 WY 3
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|