Summary 2007 WY 177

Summary of Decision issued November 5, 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: Bd. of Teton County Commissioners v. Crow

Citation: 2007 WY 177

Docket Number: S-07-0031

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, Jackson, Wyoming; and Tim Newcomb of Grant & Newcomb, Laramie, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court’s “perception and finding” that confusion, disagreement and lack of clarity as to how to interpret and enforce Section 2450 “undoubtedly influenced by the Crow’s decision to embark and continue on their ill advised course,” was clearly erroneous. Whether the district court’s “perception and finding” that the County’s previous enforcement efforts undoubtedly influenced the Crows’ decision to embark and continue on their ill advised course, was clearly erroneous. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the requested abatement, under the totality of the circumstances presented, thereby allowing the Crows to purchase a variance to which they were not otherwise legally or equitably entitled.

Facts/Discussion: Teton County challenged an order of the district court that declined to order the removal of excessive square footage added to a home built by the Crows in violation of county LDRs.
Standard of Review: The Court’s question in review was whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious.
The Court agreed with Teton County that Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the district court’s order were unsound. [The paragraphs can be found in the full decision at the link below.] The Court did not rely on them in their decision to affirm the district court’s ultimate conclusion.
The Court agreed with the County’s assertion that the imposition of a fine appears to allow the Crows to buy a right to violate the law or procure an after the fact variance. However, they noted the definition of judicial discretion as including a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Considered in its totality, the district court’s balancing process resulted in a reasoned decision. The court properly considered the size, character, and use of the house and interest the County has in enforcement of its regulations.

Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s 2006 order denying abatement. The court’s balancing of the equities was supported by the evidence and within the court’s sound discretion. The accumulation of fines for the subject violations ceased as of the entry of the district court’s clarifying order entered on January 29, 2007.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2bz5v6 .