Summary 2006 WY 45

Summary of Decision issued April 13, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 assistance.]

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

Case Name: Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, WY v. Crow; Moeller and Southpac Trust Int’l; and Overton

Citation: 2006 WY 45

Docket Number: 05-111 & 05-112

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): James L. Radda, Deputy County Attorney, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Bradford S. Mead and Katherine L. Mead of Mead & Mead, Jackson, Wyoming, and Tim Newcomb of Grant & Newcomb, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Mead.

Date of Decision: April 13, 2006

Issues: Teton County: Whether the Court erred in not ordering abatement as requested by the County in an enforcement action brought pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-205. Whether the district court abused its limited discretion in not ordering the abatement requested by the County in an enforcement action brought pursuant to the above statute. Whether the district court’s findings that the parties had agreed and stipulated that the applicable period for the imposition of any fines was from 2/15/199 to 9/15/1999 inclusive, clearly erroneous. Whether the district court erred in both the original Judgment and the Corrected and Amended Judgment in not imposing a fine against Crow for each day’s continuation of his violation of Section 2450.
Crow: Whether the Court should divest the district court in this and every other abatement case of its traditional prerogative in fashioning and enforcing an equitable remedy. Whether the Court should substitute its judgment for that of the district court. Whether the Court should substitute its judgment for the district court about an appropriate fine for a violation of County regulations.

Holding: Crow appeared through counsel at a meeting of the Teton County Board of County Commissioners to request permission to construct a house with 12,000 square feet of habitable space. He was advised to get a Plan Amendment or Variance. The record does not show that Crow sought a plan amendment or variance. Crow obtained a building permit to construct a house of 8,000 habitable square feet. Shortly after construction and final inspection and approval by Teton County, Crow appears to have added 3,000 square feet of living space. The remodeling work was done without a building permit.
The issues in the instant case are governed by statutes that were applied by the district court including: Wyo. Stat. Ann § 18-5-204, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-205 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-206. The Court’s objective with respect to enforcement of the abatement statute was to ascertain whether the district court abused its discretion by its failure to require abatement. Judicial discretion means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.
Abatement: Teton County is authorized to enforce applicable regulations. They sought to enforce its (Land Development Regulations) LDRs by means of abatement of all additions in violation of the LDRs. The district court was correct when it determined that it had the authority to order abatement however Teton County need not have made a showing of irreparable injury. The district court is required to make specific findings balancing the equities. Then the district court may ascertain if its equitable power to deny an injunction or any other enforcement mechanism is appropriate under the totality of the circumstances.
Fines: The district court imposed a fine on Crow for 242 days and it is evident that his violation of that regulation continued for a longer time than 242 days. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-5-204 and 18-5-206 make imposition of a fine mandatory for each day a violation continues.

The Judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded.

C.J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/g22qe .