Brock v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workforce Servs.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | S-16-0189 |
| Citation | 394 P.3d 460 |
| Parties | Mark BROCK and Della Brock, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. STATE of Wyoming, EX REL., WYOMING WORKFORCE SERVICES, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Jonathon I. Aimone, Lemich Law Center, Rock Springs, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; Daniel E. White, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Benjamin E. Fischer, Assistant Attorney General; Charlotte M. Powers, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Powers.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶1] The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming certified a question to this Court concerning the relative priority of liens against real property. This question asks us to determine whether a lien created by a certificate of purchase for delinquent taxes held by Appellants, Mark and Della Brock, is superior to a lien held by the State of Wyoming, Department of Workforce Services, for unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. We answer the certified question in the affirmative.
[¶2] Is a lien against real property created by a certificate of purchase for delinquent taxes pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-108(d)(ii) superior to any lien held by the State of Wyoming, Department of Workforce Services under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-511(b) for unpaid contributions and interest to the unemployment compensation fund?
[¶3] The federal district court's certification order contains a statement of facts pertinent to the certified question. According to that order, this case concerns real estate in Uinta County and encumbrances against the property arising from the failure of Sagebrush Broadcasting Company, Inc. to satisfy various financial obligations. Claims against the property have been asserted by the Brocks, the Department of Workforce Services, the United States Internal Revenue Service, and others. The Brocks paid past due taxes on the property in 2010 and obtained a "Certificate of Purchase of Real Estate for Taxes" relating to the property. They also paid taxes on the property through October 2014. They claim they are entitled to approximately $22,000 in satisfaction of the taxes (including interest), costs, and attorneys' fees incurred in perfecting their title to the property.
[¶4] The Department has also filed liens against the property for delinquent unemployment insurance contributions, interest, and fees. The Department filed its first lien on August 23, 2006, and subsequently filed an additional 14 liens against the property. As of May 2016, the delinquent contributions, plus interest, totaled $19,683.47. The Internal Revenue Service filed its lien in 2009 for unpaid federal tax liabilities assessed against Sagebrush. The IRS's lien is in the principal amount of $74,983.24.
[¶5] This litigation began in January 2015, when the Brocks filed suit in state district court seeking foreclosure of their lien and a declaration that their lien is superior to all other encumbrances against the property. The Brocks named the Department and the IRS as defendants.1 The IRS removed the case to federal district court and has conceded that both the Brocks' and the Department's liens have priority over its federal tax liens.
[¶6] The federal district court certified the issue to this Court to determine the relative priority of the interests held by the Department and the Brocks in the Sagebrush property. We agreed to answer the certified question.2
[¶7] The certified question presents an issue of statutory interpretation. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo . Yager v. State , 2015 WY 139, ¶ 7, 362 P.3d 777, 779 (Wyo. 2015).
[¶8] In answering the certified question, we apply our usual rules of statutory interpretation: Spreeman v. State , 2012 WY 88, ¶ 10, 278 P.3d 1159, 1162 (Wyo. 2012).
A statute is unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree as to its meaning with consistency and predictability. Unless another meaning is clearly intended, words and phrases shall be taken in their ordinary and usual sense. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous only if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. In determining whether a statute is ambiguous we begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the statute in parimateria . When a statute is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and do not resort to the rules of statutory construction.
Jones v. State , 2011 WY 115, ¶ 11, 256 P.3d 536, 541 (Wyo. 2011).
[¶9] The Brocks claim their lien is superior to that held by the Department pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-108(d)(ii) (LexisNexis 2015). That statute provides:
(Emphasis added.) The Brocks claim the statute unambiguously makes their lien superior to the lien held by the Department because the Department's lien is not a lien "created by junior tax sales or payment of subsequent taxes by another person."
[¶10] The Department claims a lien against the property under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-511(b), which provides in pertinent part: "The amount of contributions and interest due the department is a lien upon all real ... property ... owned or acquired by the employer." That statute authorizes the filing of a lien for unpaid contributions but does not contain any provision pertaining to the priority of any lien filed under the statute. The Department relies upon Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-512 in support of its claim that its lien has priority. The statute provides:
(Emphasis added.) Relying on the priority language in the statute, the Department asserts that the Brocks' lien is not a claim for "taxes" under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-512. Consequently, the Department contends that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-512 gives their lien priority, and that the statute is in "irreconcilable conflict" with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-108(d)(ii).3 The Department claims that "conflict" between the statutes creates an ambiguity which must be resolved by this Court. According to the Department:
[T]he Brocks do not have a lien for taxes. Instead, the Brocks have, by virtue of their "certificate of purchase," a "lien against the real property ... to the extent of taxes, costs, and penalties accrued plus ... the value of improvements placed on the real property by the lienholder." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-13-108(d)(iii). The Brocks' proposed construction fails and does not solve the ambiguity between the two statutes when they are construed together.
The Department claims that the ambiguity should be resolved in its favor, and that its lien should be found to have priority over the Brocks' lien. We do not agree.
[¶11] We rejected a similar argument in Barlow v. Lonabaugh , 61 Wyo. 118, 156 P.2d 289 (1945). In that case, the owners of property in Sheridan County failed to pay the assessed property taxes. The property was subsequently sold to the county. When the owners failed to redeem, the county treasurer issued a tax deed to the county for the property.4 Id. , 61 Wyo. at 125, 156 P.2d at 291. The county subsequently sold the property to a private purchaser. The litigation was initiated by the holder of special assessment bonds issued for a paving assessment that were in default. Id. , 61 Wyo. at 124, 156 P.2d at 290. The bondholders claimed that their interest in the property was superior to the rights of the current owners because the tax lien had been extinguished when the current owner purchased the property from the county. The position espoused by the bondholders in Barlow was similar to the one taken by the Department here:
defendants do not have nor assert a tax lien, and are not attempting to foreclose one. They merely have a quit claim deed from the county, and the county in turn acquired its title by deed from the owner and not through a completed tax sale.... In purchasing a quit claim of the property from the county, the county's claim or lien for general county and state taxes was discharged. From then on the defendants had the property as any private purchaser. When the county's prior lien for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinclair Wyo. Ref. Co. v. Infrassure, LTD
...423 P.3d 309, 312 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Brock v. State ex. Rel. Wyoming Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Div. , 2017 WY 47, ¶ 7, 394 P.3d 460, 462 (Wyo. 2017) ).DISCUSSION[¶11] This Court has not addressed whether an insurance contract is "delivered" or "issued for delivery" if actual deli......
-
Lietz v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs.
...or the personnel rules. See Brock v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workforce Services, Unemployment Ins. Div. , 2017 WY 47, ¶ 13 n.6, 394 P.3d 460, 465 n.6 (Wyo. 2017) (noting that if the legislature intended liens at issue in that case to have priority, it could have easily done so). Instead, the ......
-
Sena v. State
...interpretations," id. (quoting Brock v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Div. , 2017 WY 47, ¶ 8, 394 P.3d 460, 462–63 (Wyo. 2017) ), "we apply general principles of statutory construction ‘to construe any ambiguous language to accurately reflect the intent of the le......
-
Delcon Partners LLC v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, S-19-0078
...WY 26, ¶ 12, 390 P.3d 357, 360 (Wyo. 2017) ); Brock v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workforce Servs., Unemp’t Ins. Div. , 2017 WY 47, ¶ 8, 394 P.3d 460, 462 (Wyo. 2017) ("Our paramount consideration is the legislature’s intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the st......