Dorr, Keller, Bentley & Pecha v. Dorr, Bentley & Pecha ( 1992 )


Menu:
  • THOMAS, Justice,

    dissenting.

    While I agree with much of what is said in the opinion of the court, I cannot agree with the ultimate resolution. I have struggled to find common ground with the majority opinion or with Justice Rooney, but I am persuaded that the correct disposition is that this appeal must be dismissed. That persuasion leaves me with the conclusion that I must separately dissent.

    I am satisfied that the opinion of the court is correct in its conclusion that the civil action filed by Dorr & Associates in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District failed to invoke the jurisdiction of that court because of the stay in bankruptcy. The same rationale is applicable to the action purportedly filed by Dorr, Keller, Bentley & Pecha in the District Court of the First Judicial District that was ordered to be consolidated with the action pending in the Sixth Judicial District. In neither instance did the district court acquire jurisdiction over the case, and I am satisfied that the defect was not cured by the lifting of that stay at a later time.

    Our rule is quite clear to the effect that this court has no greater subject matter jurisdiction than that vested in the trial court and, in instances in which the trial court has no jurisdiction, the appropriate disposition is dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court. Matter of Estate of Fulmer, 761 P.2d 658 (Wyo.1988); Snell v. Ruppert, 541 P.2d 1042 (Wyo.1975); Pritchard v. State, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Dept. of Health and Social Services, 540 P.2d 523 (Wyo.1975); Ginn v. Parrish, 362 P.2d 824 (Wyo.1961). The proper disposition for this court to make in this case is to dismiss the appeal.

    Certainly, the court should not be offering advice concerning the action that apparently was instituted to confirm the award of the arbitrators. That case is not before this court in any way.

    I would dismiss this appeal after noting the reasons for the absence of any jurisdiction in the trial court.

Document Info

Docket Number: 91-32

Judges: Thomas, Cardine, Golden, Rooney, Brown

Filed Date: 8/14/1992

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024