Woodie v. Whitesell

• Decision Date: 14 November 2019
• Docket Number: S-19-0047,S-19-0077
• Parties: Paul A. WOODIE and Kimberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kymberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kym Woodie, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants), v. Janet WHITESELL, Appellee (Plaintiff). Paul A. Woodie and Kimberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kymberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kym Woodie, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants), v. Janet Whitesell, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

451 P.3d 1152

Paul A. WOODIE and Kimberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kymberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kym Woodie, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants),

v.Janet WHITESELL, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Paul A. Woodie and Kimberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kymberly A. Woodie a/k/a Kym Woodie, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants),

v.Janet Whitesell, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-19-0047

S-19-0077

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 14, 2019

Representing Appellants: William R. Fix and Jessica Simons of Fix Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming; Larissa A. McCalla, Wyarno, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. McCalla.

Representing Appellee: John R. Goodell of Racine Olson, PLLP, Boise, Idaho.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Janet Whitesell sued Paul and Kimberly Woodie (Woodies) in the district court in Teton County, Wyoming, seeking to collect on a promissory note (Note). The Woodies executed the Note in Idaho and delivered it to Ms. Whitesell in payment for real estate located in Idaho. The Note was originally secured by a deed of trust in the property. At the time of the transaction, neither party had any connection with Wyoming. The Woodies filed several motions to dismiss the Wyoming lawsuit, asserting the Wyoming district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court denied the Woodies’ motions to dismiss and granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Whitesell. The Woodies challenge both rulings on appeal. We affirm.

FACTS

[¶2] In May 2011, Ms. Whitesell sold her home in Idaho to the Woodies for $225,000. The Woodies paid $50,000 with money they borrowed from Snake River Funding (Snake River) and delivered a $175,000 promissory note to Ms. Whitesell for the balance. The Note called for the Woodies to make 47 monthly installments beginning July 1, 2011, and to make a balloon payment on July 1, 2015. In return, Ms. Whitesell delivered a warranty deed to the Woodies, which they recorded. The Woodies gave Snake River a first deed of trust in the subject property as security for the debt associated with the $50,000 down payment and gave Ms. Whitesell a second deed of trust in the same property to secure the $175,000 Note.

[¶3] The Woodies made five (5) monthly payments to Ms. Whitesell. They stopped making payments on the Note in December 2011, asserting Ms. Whitesell failed to timely vacate the property. In September 2012, Ms. Whitesell recorded a Notice of Default in the property records in Idaho. The next month, Snake River, as senior lienholder, also recorded a Notice of Default and began foreclosure proceedings. Snake River foreclosed on the property; neither Ms. Whitesell nor the Woodies redeemed the property.

[¶4] In July 2017, Ms. Whitesell filed this lawsuit in Teton County, seeking judgment against both Mr. and Mrs. Woodie on the Note. A Teton County deputy sheriff served Mr. Woodie with the complaint and a summons in Teton County, Wyoming. Shortly thereafter, without filing any challenge to the Wyoming court’s personal jurisdiction over either defendant, Wyoming counsel entered an appearance on behalf of both Mr. and Mrs. Woodie. The Woodies later filed several motions to dismiss arguing, among other things, Ms. Whitesell’s complaint was barred by the applicable Idaho statute of limitations and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint. The district court denied the motions to dismiss.

[¶5] Ms. Whitesell filed a motion for summary judgment with an affidavit stating the Woodies defaulted on the Note and establishing the balance due. The district court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and granted summary judgment in her favor.

ISSUES

[¶6] The issues presented by the Woodies are:

1. Did the district court have subject matter and personal jurisdiction?

2. Did the district court correctly apply the correct Idaho statute of limitations?

3. Did the district court fail to properly apply the Idaho Trust Deeds Act?

4. Did the district court err in awarding interest, attorney’s fees and costs to Ms. Whitesell?

DISCUSSION

1. Did the district court have subject matter and personal jurisdiction?

[¶7] In their issue statement, the Woodies claim the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; however, a close reading of their argument shows they challenge personal jurisdiction as well. Accordingly we will address both.

[¶8] Jurisdictional issues "present questions of law that this Court reviews de novo ." DeLoge v. Homar , 2013 WY 33, ¶ 10, 297 P.3d 117, 120 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Hall v. Park County , 2010 WY 124, ¶ 3, 238 P.3d 580, 581 (Wyo. 2010) ). See also, Operation Save America v. City of Jackson, 2012 WY 51, ¶ 16, 275 P.3d 438, 447 (Wyo. 2012) (subject matter and personal jurisdiction are questions of law considered de novo, without regard to the district court’s determination) (citing Meyer v. Hatto, 2008 WY 153, ¶ 14, 198 P.3d 552, 555 (Wyo. 2008), and Northfork Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Park Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2008 WY 88, ¶ 6, 189 P.3d 260, 262 (Wyo. 2008) ).

a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

[¶9] "Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.’ " Lacey v. Lacey , 925 P.2d 237, 238 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Fuller v. State , 568 P.2d 900, 903 (Wyo. 1977) ). Wyoming courts derive their subject matter jurisdiction from the Wyoming Constitution and statutes enacted by the Wyoming legislature. Best v. Best , 2015 WY 133, ¶ 11, 357 P.3d 1149, 1152 (Wyo. 2015). Our constitution recognizes broad jurisdiction in the district courts, stating they have "original jurisdiction of all causes both at law and in equity ... in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court[.]" Wyoming Constitution Art. 5, § 10 (emphasis added). The Wyoming legislature limited a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction by vesting "exclusive original jurisdiction" in circuit courts for contract and other actions where the amount sought does not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-9-128 (LexisNexis 2019). It has not, however, limited a district court’s jurisdiction over contract claims for contracts made or performed outside Wyoming. The starting point in this analysis, then, is that district courts have extensive subject matter jurisdiction, enabling them to consider all common law causes (except as limited by the legislature). In this case, Ms. Whitesell sued to enforce a contract, in particular a promissory note. It goes without saying that district courts in Wyoming have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate promissory notes and other contract cases as long as the amount in controversy requirement is met. See, e.g. , Thornock v. PacifiCorp, 2016 WY 93, 379 P.3d 175 (Wyo. 2016) (contract dispute adjudicated in district court); Prudential Preferred Properties v. J & J Ventures, Inc., 859 P.2d 1267 (Wyo. 1993) (dispute over promissory note adjudicated in district court).

[¶10] The Woodies assert the Note in this case belongs to a separate class of contracts which a Wyoming court may not enforce, as the Note was made in Idaho and was secured by real estate in Idaho. The Woodies provide no authority for either of these novel positions. They make an unsupported assertion that Wyoming courts should not have subject matter jurisdiction over contracts made outside Wyoming because to do so would greatly burden the Wyoming courts and encourage forum shopping. Those assertions are suspect, have not been the law in Wyoming to this point, and the Woodies fail to support them. We decline to judicially create a new limitation on subject matter jurisdiction in the manner they propose. The fact that a promissory note was made in another state or was secured by collateral located in another state does not impact a Wyoming district court’s subject matter jurisdiction to resolve a case based on the note.

[¶11] We previously recognized that Wyoming courts have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving contracts made outside the state if either party to the contract is subject to personal jurisdiction in Wyoming. Booth v. Magee Carpet Co. , 548 P.2d 1252, 1256 (Wyo. 1976). "[T]he general rule is that when a suit is based upon a contract, as in this case, the action is transitory and may be determined by any court which can obtain jurisdiction on the person without regard to its place of execution or performance." Id.

[¶12] The Woodies claim our holding in Booth is limited to circumstances when performance of the contract somehow is connected to Wyoming. Booth states exactly the opposite. Our language in Booth is unambiguous, recognizing subject matter jurisdiction in such contract cases "without regard to its place of execution or performance ." Id. at 1256 (emphasis added).

[¶13] The Woodies assert the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction because the Note was part of an Idaho real estate transaction. Wyoming courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce contracts in a manner which affects title to real estate in another state. This limitation, however, does not turn on whether the contract was made outside Wyoming, but instead is a limitation on a Wyoming court’s authority to affect title to real estate in another state. "We have stated that we think the issue settled, at least since Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909), that the court of one state has no power to directly affect title to land located wholly within the borders of another. Decrees and judgments purporting to this effect are void, and to the extent the decree before us purports to so do it must fail." Meima v. Broemmel , 2005 WY 87, ¶ 64, 117 P.3d 429, 450 (Wyo. 2005).

[¶14] A Wyoming court’s inability to affect title to real estate in another state is irrelevant to this case. The Note the Woodies gave Ms. Whitesell has no effect on title to real estate located in Idaho or anywhere...