Summary 2010 WY 121

Summary of Decision issued August 25, 2010

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

Case Name: Davison v. Wyo. Game and Fish Comm’n

Citation: 2010 WY 121

Docket Number: S-10-0007

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellants Davison; Richner & Marton Ranch, Inc.: Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton, Hageman & Brighton, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Wyo. Game & Fish and Wyo. Game & Fish Dept.: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Jay A. Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; James Kaste, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Davison, Richner and Marton Ranch, Inc. (Landowners) sought reversal of the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (collectively called the Commission) in their dispute over the interpretation of an easement the Commission has over a portion of the Landowners’ properties.

Is the Lusby Easement ambiguous: The Landowners and Commission agree that the Easement unambiguously provides that the landward boundary of the walking easement is a line located one hundred feet from the high water line of the river. It is only the streamside boundary that was in dispute. The Landowners contend that the Easement clearly and unambiguously states that the streamside boundary of the Easement is the high water line of the river. The Commission asserts that the Easement established the middle of the river as the streamside boundary of the walking easement. All parties agreed that the single “easement line” described in the Plat and Survey was intended to be the landward boundary of the walking easement. Nowhere in the Lusby Easement is there any explicit designation of the streamside boundary. The Court concluded the Lusby Easement was ambiguous. First, the language could be read to establish an easement for the purpose of fishing and migratory waterfowl hunting, with its streamside boundary at the middle of the river. From another point of view, the language could be read to establish a walking easement 100 feet in width with the streamside boundary at the high water line. Giving effect to both readings is impossible. The Court agreed with the district court that the “inconsistency between the seemingly restricted walk way for fisherman and hunters on one hand, and, on the other hand, the expressed intent within the easement to allow fishing and migratory bird hunting…creates an ambiguity within the easement.”
Interpreting the Lusby Easement using extrinsic evidence: Because the Lusby Easement deed was ambiguous, the merger doctrine did not preclude the Court from considering the extrinsic sales contract as an aid in interpreting the deed language. The Court found the sales contract and the Commission’s certifications firmly established that the Lusby Easement was meant to extend to the middle of the river. The Landowners presented no evidence on that point but relied on their position that the language of the Easement was plain and unambiguous.
Prescriptive easement: Because the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commission, there was no reason for the Commission to pursue a claim of prescriptive easement, and no need for the Court to consider the Landowners’ contention that the Commission could not claim a prescriptive easement under Wyoming law.
Location of the boat launching ramp: All parties agreed that the Lusby Easement’s description of the boat launching ramp was clear and unambiguous. Also, it was undisputed that the ramp was initially constructed in the specified location and later moved to a different spot at the request of Davison. In their brief, the Landowners assert the Davisons disagreed with the Commission’s rendition of what occurred in relation to the decision to move the boat ramp but did not provide their version. They did not provide a single citation to the record providing any factual support for their disagreement with the Commission’s rendition of what occurred. Therefore, the district court was correct in ruling that there were no genuine issues of material fact with regard to the relocation of the boat ramp.

Conclusion: The Court concluded the Lusby Easement was ambiguous. Since it was, the merger doctrine did not preclude the Court from considering the extrinsic sales contract. As to the remaining arguments, the Court cannot provide meaningful review when a party fails to provide pertinent authority, cogent argument or factual support.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/28d54cq .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]