Summary 2007 WY 158

Summary of Decision issued October 8, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. The Board of County Commissioners of Crook County, WY

Citation: 2007 WY 158

Docket Number: S-07-0007

Appeal from the District Court of Crook County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Max Main and Wade Nyberg of Bennett, Main & Gubbrud, PC, Belle Fourche, SD

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Joseph M. Baron, Crook County and Prosecuting Attorney, Sundance, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the findings of fact and conclusion of law made by the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. Whether the Board erred in selecting the route preferred by the Cragos as the route that does the least possible damage. Whether the Board erred in selecting the route preferred by the Cragos as the route that is the most reasonable and convenient.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants will be referred to as Fortaks as owners of Elk Horn Ranch. Appellees are the Cragos who operate an adjoining ranch under the Crago Ranch Trust. The Cragos asserted they had no enforceable means of access to their ranch because in 2003, the Fortaks began denying the Cragos the use of a road that they had used for at least the preceding 50 years. The Fortaks acquired the Elk Horn Ranch in 1987. The Cragos sought a private road under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101. The need for the road was not in dispute, rather the issues related to the selection of which of two existing routes across the Fortaks’ ranch was the most appropriate under the terms of the governing statute and which method would be used to measure the damages caused to the Fortaks.
The Statute: The statute provides the sole and complete remedy for landlocked owners to obtain access to their property. The statute was changed in 2000 so the Wyoming cases that predate those amendments are not a reliable source of authority. The Court has concluded that once a landowner has proved that he has no “legally enforceable means by which he can gain access” to a public road, then he has demonstrated the necessity for a private road.
The Parties to this Judicial Review: The Fortaks sought review of the Board’s action in the district court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). The Court stated they questioned the soundness of their holding in Miller and backtracked a bit from it. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the Board acted principally as an adjudicatory body. The County and the Board may have an interest in the sensible laying out of roads throughout the County and that may be deemed as an exercise of its regulatory powers. However, the Board did not act in the defense of its regulatory powers in these appeals. The Fortaks did not challenge the Board’s acting as the principal respondent in the district court proceedings and they do not challenge its role as Appellee in this appeal. The Court did not consider this a circumstance that deprived the Court of its jurisdiction to resolve the appeal. The Court cautioned that the district court and similarly situated parties need to be more attentive to those concerns.
Standard of Review: Judicial review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandated that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test, regardless of which party appeals.
The Road Not Taken: The principal source of controversy is that there were two roads/routes already in existence and available for the Cragos to use: Route #1 or Route #2. The Court carefully considered the evidence presented before the Board and concluded there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that the Cragos should be granted a private road over Route #1.
Damages: The Court noted that the viewers and appraisers found the fair market value of the Fortaks’ land was $2,000 per acre. The Court stated there was substantial evidence on that point. The Court concluded that substantial evidence from the transcript, video tapes and the specific findings supported the selection of Route #1.
The Court noted the damage determination made by the Board had significant flaws they could not ignore. The “before and after” appraisal was not appropriately determined as defined by the appraisal business. Also, the Board adopted the findings of the viewers and appraisers even though they rejected the recommendation of the viewers and appraisers.

Holding: Although the appeal and the proceedings in the district court had an improper party included (the Board) and the proper party did not participate (the Cragos), the Court concluded that they should respond to the issues raised.
The award of damages had no apparent basis in the facts and circumstances in the case. The order of the district court affirming the Board’s award of damages was reversed. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Board establishing the private road over Route #1. The matter was remanded to the district court to remand to the Board to begin the process of having the viewers and appraisers make a “before and after” determination of the Fortaks’ damages.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the district court with directions that it be further remanded to the Board for additional proceedings.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/333hjk .