Summary 2011 WY 33

Summary of Decision February 25, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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 any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Goodman v. Voss, Voss V. Goodman

Citation: 2011 WY 33

Docket Number: S-10-0058, S-10-0115

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461783

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certified Question from the District Court of Albany County, The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Case No. S-10-0058:

Representing Appellants (Respondents): Gay Woodhouse and Deborah L. Roden of Woodhouse Roden, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Woodhouse.

Representing Appellees (Petitioners): Mark T. Voss and Laura M. Voss of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Voss.

Case No. S-10-0115:

Representing Appellants (Petitioners): Mark T. Voss and Laura M. Voss of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Voss.

Representing Appellees (Respondents): Daniel B. Frank of Frank Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellees Stevens. Gay Woodhouse and Deborah L. Roden of Woodhouse Roden, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Appellees Respondent. Argument by Mr. Frank and Ms. Woodhouse.

Date of Decision: February 25, 2011

Facts: These related cases came before the Court in their present iterations as W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) certifications from the district court. The battle is between neighboring landowners, with one seeking condemnation of a private road under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (LexisNexis 1999), and one contesting location of that road on her property. The issues before the Court all involved decisions rendered by the Board of County Commissioners of Albany County, Wyoming (the Board), in exercising its authority under the statute.

Issues: 1) Whether Respondent’s petition for review was timely filed; 2) Whether the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar Respondent from relitigating the questions of whether the Petitioners’ property is landlocked and whether the Petitioners acted in good faith in pursuing their petition under the statute; 3) Whether the Board erred as a matter of law in focusing upon damage to the Petitioners’ property instead of damage to Respondent’s property, in locating the road; 4) Whether the Board erred as a matter of law in allowing the Petitioners to install a cattle guard at the junction of their property and the private road; 5) Whether the Board erred as a matter of law in denying the Petitioners’ motion for an award of costs under W.R.C.P. 68.

Holdings: As to the first and second issues, Respondent’s petition for review was timely filed because it was filed within 30 days of the Board’s order, which was an appealable order under the rules. Respondent is barred, however, from relitigating the issues of whether the petitioner property is landlocked and whether the Petitioners filed their private road petition in good faith, those issues having been previously decided against her below, and affirmed by the Court. The remand was for the purpose of selecting a different route; it did not start the case over from scratch.

As to the third issue, The Board was authorized to amend the viewers’ report, but the amendment in this case violated the statutory mandate that the road be located so as to do the least possible damage to the land over which it is located. The viewers recognized that ending the easement at the northeast corner of the petitoner property did the least possible damage to Respondent’s property, and they reported accordingly. The extension of the road by the Board deeper into Respondent’s property created additional damage to the Respondent property, solely as a convenience to the Petitioners.

As to the fourth issue, the Court found the Board did not err as a matter of law in allowing the Petitioners to install a cattle guard where the easement entered their property because this Court’s precedent has established that, if sufficient facts are proven, a cattle guard rather than a gate may be installed under the private road statute.

And finally, the Board did not err as a matter of law or fact in denying the Petitioners’ motion for an award of costs. It is not at all clear from the record that the eventual result of the proceedings put the Petitioners in a better position, or Respondent in a worse position, than what was offered.

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the district court for further remand to the Board for entry of an order consistent herewith. That remand shall include a recomputation of damages based upon the decreased amount of property allowed to be taken under this opinion.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

J. Hill delivered the dissent. The facts, including the grant of a public easement, have changed since the first proceeding. Consequently, the law of the case doctrine does not prohibit consideration of whether, on the facts as they now exist, the Petitioners are landlocked under the statute. If the Petitioners are not landlocked, then there is no necessity and, consequently, no constitutional basis to allow a taking of the Respondent property. The dissent would reverse.