Marziale v. Spanish Fork City

• Decision Date: 22 August 2017
• Docket Number: No. 20160696,20160696
• Citation: 423 P.3d 1145
• Parties: Carole MARZIALE and James Marziale, Respondents, v. SPANISH FORK CITY, Petitioner.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

423 P.3d 1145

Carole MARZIALE and James Marziale, Respondents,

v.SPANISH FORK CITY, Petitioner.

No. 20160696

Supreme Court of Utah.

Filed August 22, 2017

Mark T. Flickinger, Provo, for respondents

John M. Zidow, S. Spencer Brown, Salt Lake City, for petitioner

Justice Himonas authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Durham, and Justice Pearce joined.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

Justice Himonas, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 This appeal requires us to decide whether a credit card error that caused Carole and James Marziale's complaint against Spanish Fork City (the City) to be rejected means that their complaint and the attached undertaking were not timely filed. We affirm the court of appeals and hold that the payment error did not affect the timeliness of the Marziales' filing.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The Marziales submitted a complaint against the City alleging that Ms. Marziale was injured from a fall at the City's sports complex on July 11, 2011. The Marziales first submitted a complaint in the Spanish Fork division of the Fourth Judicial District through the court's e-filing system at 4:10 p.m. on August 2, 2013.¹ Their complaint, however, did not include a notice of undertaking as required by the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah and was automatically rejected in a matter of seconds by the e-filing system. A printout of the "filing status" for this complaint from the Utah State Bar's "eFiling portal" stated that the system "returned a ‘failure’ status during the validation step" because "this court accepts only claims 20000 or less; you submitted ‘unspecified.’ " The Marziales contend that they did not receive this notice.

¶ 3 At 4:20 p.m. that same day, the Marziales filed the same complaint against the City, but this time with an undertaking and in the Provo division of the Fourth Judicial District. The status history of this complaint shows that it was "submitted by" counsel for the Marziales on August 2, 2013, at 4:20:08 p.m., and the status history showed both "approved" and "receipt issued" at 4:41:56 p.m. The status history also showed that a clerk manually rejected the filing at 4:41:56 p.m., setting the status to "invalid." The rejection contained the contact information for the clerk and a message that said, "A credit card error has occurred; please resubmit filing with valid credit card information for fee payment. You may want to try re-entering the credit card information, or a different credit card, before resubmitting." The Marziales state that they did not receive this notice.

¶ 4 The statute of limitations for the Marziales' claim expired on September 6 or 7, 2013. On September 10, 2013, counsel for the Marziales was unable to locate the filings on the court's system and an employee of the law firm contacted the Fourth District Court. The Marziales state that this is when they first learned the filings had been rejected. The Marziales refiled the complaint and undertaking in the Provo division on September 10, 2013, and it was accepted with proper payment.

¶ 5 The City then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Marziales' action because the September 10 filing date was outside of the statute of limitations. The Marziales filed an opposition to the City's motion and a motion to correct the record, asking the district court to change the date of their filing from September 10, 2013 to August 2, 2013. The court granted the City summary judgment and denied the Marziales' motion, finding that the Marziales' complaint had not been filed until September 10, 2013.

¶ 6 The Marziales appealed. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "the complaint's electronic receipt was the meaningful equivalent of its acceptance" and therefore the complaint was filed on August 2, 2013. Marziale v. Spanish Fork City , 2016 UT App 166, ¶ 17, 380 P.3d 40.

¶ 7 The City timely petitioned this court for certiorari, which we granted pursuant to our jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 "On certiorari review, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals, not the decision of the district court." Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City , 2007 UT 25, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806. "Because a summary judgment presents questions of law, we accord no particular deference to the court of appeals' ruling and review it for correctness." Ellsworth Paulsen Constr. Co. v. 51–SPR–L.L.C. , 2008 UT 28, ¶ 12, 183 P.3d 248 (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." UTAH R. CIV . P. 56(a). We "view the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable" to the nonmoving party. Hamblin v. City of Clearfield , 795 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1990).

ANALYSIS

¶ 9 The City argues that neither of the Marziales' attempts at filing their complaint on August 2, 2013, was successful. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint in the Spanish Fork division, the City argues, because that filing did not have an undertaking, which is a requirement under the Governmental Immunity Act. And, the City contends, the complaint filed in the Provo division was not valid because it lacked proper payment at the time of filing. We hold that the credit card error for the Marziales' filing in the Provo division did not affect the validity of their filing of the complaint. Because this means that the Marziales' lawsuit may proceed, we decline to decide whether the filing in the Spanish Fork division was valid because the question is moot.

I. THE TIMELINESS OF THE PROVO COMPLAINT

¶ 10 The Marziales' complaint in the Provo court was rejected solely on the basis of a credit card error—the type of dishonored payment that both our rules of civil procedure and case law say does not affect the validity of the filing of a complaint.

¶ 11 We begin our analysis with the plain language of the rules at issue. See Aequitas Enters. v. Interstate Inv. Grp. , 2011 UT 82, ¶ 17, 267 P.3d 923. Rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure details the commencement of an action and states in relevant part that "[d]ishonor of a check or other form of payment does not affect the validity of the filing, but may be grounds for such sanctions as the court deems appropriate," UTAH R. CIV . P. 3(a), and that "[t]he court shall have jurisdiction from the time of filing of the complaint or service of the summons and a copy of the complaint," UTAH R. CIV . P. 3(b). Rule 5 states that "[f]iling is complete upon the earliest of acceptance by the electronic filing system, the clerk of court or the judge." UTAH R. CIV . P. 5(e). Neither rule by its plain language requires valid payment for a complaint to be filed or accepted. In fact, rule 3(a) explicitly states the opposite—that dishonor of payment does not affect whether the filing is valid.

¶ 12 Despite the clear language of rule 3, the City argues that we should read into our procedural rules a requirement that filing fees must be paid at the time a complaint is accepted for the filing to be valid. The City points to Utah's court fees statute, which requires that "all fees shall be paid at the time the clerk accepts the pleading for filing," UTAH CODE § 78A-2-301(1)(dd), and to language added in 2008 to rule 5 tying the completion of filing to the time of "acceptance." The City argues that the use of "acceptance" in rule 5 and "accepts" in the court fees statute means that we should read the court fees statute's requirement of payment at the time of filing into rule 5.

¶ 13 We rejected a similar argument in Dipoma v. McPhie , holding that rule 3 does not explicitly incorporate statutes—including the precursor to the court fees statute—that require payment of fees before court employees may perform their services. 2001 UT 61, ¶¶ 10, 13 & n.5, 29 P.3d 1225 (holding that statute providing that "all fees shall be paid at the time the clerk accepts the pleading for filing" was not incorporated in rule 3 for jurisdictional purposes). We reject the City's argument that the court fees statute is incorporated in rule 5 for similar reasons. The use of "acceptance" in rule 5 and "accepts" in the court fees statute does not mean that those provisions must be read together in the way the City urges, which is to say, in a way that directly conflicts with rule 3's statement that dishonor of payment does not affect the validity of filing.

¶ 14 Rather than requiring payment at the time of filing as a matter of jurisdiction, rule 3 provides that dishonor of payment "may be grounds for such sanctions as the court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the action and the award of costs and attorney fees." UTAH R. CIV . P. 3(a). So while a party should pay fees "at the time the clerk accepts the pleading for filing," UTAH CODE § 78A-2-301(1)(dd), dishonor of payment results not in an invalid filing but in court-determined sanctions, which may vary from case to case, UTAH R. CIV . P. 3(a) ; see also Dipoma , 2001 UT 61, ¶ 19, 29 P.3d 1225 (stating that where "a litigant receives notice that his or her original payment has been returned for insufficient funds, the litigant must pay the required filing fee within a reasonable time to avoid dismissal of his or her action").

¶ 15 Our holding in Dipoma squarely supports this conclusion. In that case, the plaintiff filed a complaint with a personal check for the amount due for the filing fee. 2001 UT 61, ¶ 2, 29 P.3d 1225. The clerk of court accepted the check for the filing fee and stamped the plaintiff's complaint "filed." Id. But a little over a month later—after the statute of limitations had run—the check was returned to the clerk of court for insufficient funds. Id. ¶ 3. The plaintiff eventually paid the filing fee and served the defendant, but the defendant moved for summary...