Summary 2005 WY 158

Summary of Decision issued December 13, 2005

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Boykin v. Carbon County Board of Commissioners; Silver Spur Land and Cattle, LLC; Merrill; Switzer; and Vyvey.

Citation: 2005 WY 158

Docket Number: 05-83

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): William L. Hiser of Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Respondents): Thomas A. Thompson, Carbon County Attorney Civil Deputy, Rawlins, Wyoming; John A. MacPherson of MacPherson, Kelly & Thompson, LLC, Rawlins, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. MacPherson.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2005

Issues: Whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Carbon County Commissioner’s finding that County Road 648 was established under W.S. § 24-1-101 and the common law doctrine of adverse possession or prescription. Whether the rights to use a road acquired by a governmental entity under the common law doctrine of adverse possession or prescription are limited to the road’s historical use.

Holdings: The standard of review of an appeal of a Board decision is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. The Court considers the case as though it came directly to them from the Board. Appellant and Appellees presented evidence at the hearing so the review of the factual findings is limited to determining whether they were supported by substantial evidence.
The county presented evidence to rebut the presumption that use of the road was permissive, including testimony from the county road and bridge superintendent, neighboring landowners, other county road and bridge department employees, a former member of the school board, and Appellant’s mother. The Court concluded the county met its burden of rebutting the presumption that use of the road was permissive and established that its claim was hostile and adverse to Appellant’s claim of ownership in a clear and unequivocal way. Appellees did not rely upon the presumption of adverse and hostile use so it was not required to present evidence of “exclusive use” of the easement as suggested by Appellant.
Establishment of the road as a county road did not constitute an impermissible expansion of the historic adverse use that was the basis for the prescriptive claim. The Court has not applied the restrictive use principle to claims of adverse possession or prescription brought by public entities under § 24-1-101. The Court agreed with the district court’s reasoning that use of a public highway right-of-way cannot be limited to historical uses as may be the case for private claimants of particular prescriptive easements. The imposition of such restrictions on public roads or portions of public roads would defeat the very concept of a public road system.

The decision of the district court was affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.