Summary 2007 WY 42

Summary of Decision issued March 14, 2007

[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 with a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Wilson v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teton

Citation: 2007 WY 42

Docket Number: 05-213

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

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Karen Budd-Falen and Brandon L. Jensen of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Jensen.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): James L. Radda, Deputy Teton County Attorney, Jackson, WY.

Issues: Whether the United States Supreme Court’s standards with regard to the conditional granting of a development permit as set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard apply to Teton County’s regulations conditioning subdivision approval. Whether Wilsons’ takings challenge is ripe for review even though Teton County has not been provided an opportunity to avoid an “unconstitutional application” of challenged regulations. Whether Teton County’s subdivision regulations fail to substantially relate to a legitimate government interest. Whether Section 4300.D.3 of Teton County’s subdivision regulations provides for an unlawful physical appropriation of property. Whether Teton County has express or implied authority to require the conveyance of rights to enforce open space restrictions to an organization qualified and dedicated to preserving the values intended by the open space restrictions. Whether Wilsons’ claims and allegations are barred by the statute of limitation, the doctrine of estoppel, or laches.

Facts/Discussion: On May, 2004, Wilsons filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the district court: (1) that Division 4300 of the Teton County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR) which requires a developer to set aside open space within any proposed residential subdivision development is facially unconstitutional and hence unenforceable; (2) that Section 4330.D.3 which requires the developer to convey an easement for any open space within the residential subdivision development to a qualified organization is unconstitutional on its face; (3) that Section 4330.D.3. of the LDRs is ultra vires and beyond the powers conferred upon Teton County by law; and (4) that Section 49440 of the Teton County LDRs is facially unconstitutional and hence unenforceable. In addition, Wilsons sought a court order enjoining Teton County from further enforcing the provisions of the disputed LDRs. The district court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss Counts 1,2 and 4 pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). With respect to Count 3, Teton County filed a motion for summary judgment and on July 18, 2005, the district court entered its order granting that motion.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews district court orders granting dismissal of portions of the complaint and summary judgment with respect to others, wherein questions of law are decided, de novo. When reviewing 12(b)(6) motions, the Court accepts the facts as stated in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A 12(b)(6)motion is converted to a W.R.C.P. 56 motion for summary judgment if materials outside the pleadings are considered. Under the standard for review of summary judgment, the Court examines the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion and gives that party the benefit of all the favorable inferences. Because of the disposition upon which the Court had settled, the Court did not consider the constitutional challenge propounded by the Wilsons.
The Court will not address constitutional issues if they are able to resolve the case on other grounds. Section 5190, Beneficial Use Determination of the Teton County plan, provides for a detailed and expeditious application and hearing procedure. Teton County argued that because the Wilsons failed to take advantage of the administrative remedies, the Court should decline to consider the constitutional challenges.
The Wilsons presented their plan to the County, including a specific election of options under the LDRs which allowed for greater dwelling unit density in exchange for setting aside a greater amount of open space than was otherwise required. They did not appeal the conditions imposed on the Subdivision until more than a year after the Subdivision had been approved. On May 7, 2004, the Wilsons filed the declaratory judgment action. When they filed the action, all but four of the lots had been sold, gifted or reserved for their business. The County objected because it was filed so long after approval and challenged it on the bases of estoppel, laches and/or waiver.
The Court referred to cases from other jurisdictions where landowners accepted building permits and complied with the conditions attached to those permits. The cases included Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, County of Imperial v. McDougal, Schott v. City of Kingman and Serra Canyon Co., Ltd. v. California Coastal Comm’n. The Court stated the reasoning by those courts was persuasive and that there must be a limit on when a landowner can bring a takings action, especially when the landowners did not object to the conditions at the time of approval and actually took advantage of the benefit of increased density offered by the regulations. Without restriction, the government would be perpetually exposed to unlimited takings challenges. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claim without considering the substance of the constitutional challenges because the Wilsons did not contest the conditions in a timely manner.
The Court noted the Wilsons could still maintain a facial challenge to the constitutionality and validity of the LDRs with regard to how they may affect land not involved in the approved subdivision. However, the record does not include any showing the Wilsons currently have any other property to which the LDRs might apply. They therefore lack the necessary standing to make the challenge.

Holding: The Wilsons failed to address their concerns about the constitutionality of the LDRs, or the authority of the county commissioners to enforce them, in a timely manner. Therefore, the Court concluded that the remedies the Wilsons sought in the declaratory judgment action were waived, and they lacked standing to pursue their claims in this case. The orders of the district court were affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2brwgx .