Summary 2011 WY 13

Summary of Decision February 1, 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: Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority

Citation: 2011 WY 13

Docket Number: S 10 0018

URL: http://tinyurl.com/4wev8no

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Peter F. Moyer, Jackson, Wyoming.

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

Representing Appellees (Defendants) Mantey: Andrea L. Richard of Richard Law Firm, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: February 1, 2011

Facts: Appellants sued the Appellees, claiming they violated Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act, improperly purchased land for investment purposes and incurred debt in violation of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Statutes. The district court dismissed some claims under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on other claims. Appellants appealed those rulings.

Issues: I. Whether Appellee could ratify a real estate sale over 9 months after an illegal meeting occurred approving the transaction and over 4 months after the actual closing, where Appellee acknowledged that the only vote at the meeting was taken during a secret executive session resulting in a “null and void” approval? II. Whether after the real estate closing occurred, is Appellee, as a public Wyoming agency, entitled to keep secret an 8 page transcript and tape recording of the illegal meeting, where it improperly approved the expenditure of $2.1 Million in public funds for the real estate purchase? III. Whether Appellee is entitled to pursue a “land banking” real estate investment program, not housing projects, where the applicable specific purpose excise tax (SPET) funding was approved by the voters for “affordable housing projects,” and Wyoming Statutes limit the use of SPET funds to the purposes approved by the voters, and where Wyoming Statutes strictly limit investments by public agencies? IV. Whether Appellee as a public Wyoming agency, is entitled to mortgage its properties and to pledge future tax receipts? V. Whether Appellants can present these issues in a declaratory judgment action?

Holdings: The Court found the purpose of Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act is to require open decision making, not to permanently condemn a decision or vote in violation of the Act, therefore holding that an agency may “cure” a “void” action made in violation of the Public Meetings Act by conducting a new and substantial reconsideration of the action in a manner which complies with the Act.

The Court found the factual issue remained as to whether Appellee purchased the property as an investment, or for direct use as part of an affordable housing and project and held that the district court improperly dismissed the Appellants’ claim demanding a record of the session.

The Court found that purchase of property for direct utilization in an affordable housing project was authorized by the SPET ballot, where purchase of property for indirect utilization was not authorized. The Court further found that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-103(a)(viii) is unambiguous, and Appellee could only invest in property if that property was such that a savings bank could invest in it, holding that the district court erroneously dismissed this claim.

The Court also found that the district court incorrectly determined that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-103 authorized the Appellee housing authority to purchase land for any purpose and to borrow funds for any purpose. That statute does not authorize borrowing. In addition, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-108, provides specific limitations on when borrowing may occur and does not authorize borrowing to purchase property as an investment.

In regards to the constitutional debt limit issue, the Court observed that the Appellee housing authority was simply an agent of the county, and that the county is clearly subject to the debt limits of Wyoming Constitution Article 16, §§ 3, 4, and 5. However, the Court found that debt properly incurred under the Housing Projects Statutes, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-101 et. seq., is not limited by Wyoming Constitution Article 16, §§ 3, 4, or 5. The district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ constitutional claims was appropriate.

In summary, the Court affirmed the district court on the Public Meetings Act and Wyoming Constitutional issues, but reversed on the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of claims for improperly purchasing the land and financing the purchase. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

District Judge Kautz delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 2

Summary of Decision issued January 8, 2010

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

Case Name: Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Bldg. Code Bd. of Appeals, Cheyenne

Citation: 2010 WY 2

Docket Number: S-09-0103

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant Newspaper: Bruce T. Moats of Law Office of Bruce T. Moats, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Bldg. Board: Kate M. Fox of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Facts/Discussion: The Newspaper appealed from a summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the Board declaring that certain Board action did not violate the Wyoming Public Meetings Act and that such action therefore was not null and void.
Quasi-judicial deliberations under WAPA subject to the Wyoming Public Meetings Act: All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings. The Board was created by an ordinance of the City of Cheyenne which is a municipality. The Board is the group having ultimate control over its decisions, not the city council. Therefore, the “governing body” is the board itself. The Board met to discuss and deliberate the appeal from the action of the City’s Historic Preservation Board. Quasi-judicial deliberations after a WAPA contested case hearing may not be closed to the public. Section 16-4-403(a) mandates that all meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings except for executive sessions as described in § 16-4-405. The Act intends that an agency’s deliberations occur during a public meeting.
Action of the Board null and void: The Court noted the facts in the instant case were similar to those in Mayland v. Flitner where the commissioners entered into executive session in violation of the Act but took action later at an appropriately called public meeting. In the instant case, although § 16-4-403(a) was violated when the private meeting took place, the second sentence was not violated because the agency’s action took place at a public meeting. Therefore, the action was not null and void.

Conclusion: The Board violated the statute by deliberating at a closed meeting, but the agency action took place at a public meeting, so that agency action was not null and void. The Court reversed the conclusion of the district court that the Act does not apply to quasi-judicial deliberations of an agency after a WAPA contested case hearing, but the Court affirmed the conclusion of the district court that the Board took no action that must be declared null and void.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

J. Kite concurring, joined by J. Hill: The Justices agreed that the Board was a governing body covered by the Act and its meeting in executive session was illegal. The legislature has stated in clear and unequivocal language that agencies are prohibited from deliberating behind closed doors. For some reason, the Board concluded it was exempt from these requirements and went so far as to adopt regulations which purported to provide it with authority to ignore the statute and hold executive sessions whenever it chose. The Board also ignored the city attorney’s request that it conduct its deliberations in public. In the face of that direct defiance of the law, injunctive relief may have been appropriate.
J. Burke concurring in part and dissenting in part: J. Burke agreed with the majority that an agency’s deliberations after a contested case hearing are subject to the requirements of the Wyoming Public Meetings Act and that the Board violated the Act when it deliberated at a closed meeting. However, he concluded that the record was insufficient to support a finding that the board took no action during the meeting. He would therefore have reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to resolve that genuine issue of material fact.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y8gy9bo .

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