Case Title: O'Quinn Enterprises v. Central Wyoming Regional Water System Joint Powers Bd.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
O'Quinn Enterprises v. Central Wyoming Regional Water System Joint Powers Bd.1999 WY 36975 P.2d 1062Case Number: 98-220Decided: 04/06/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

O'QUINN 
ENTERPRISES, Appellant (Plaintiff)

v.

CENTRAL WYOMING REGIONAL

WATER SYSTEM JOINT POWERS BOARD, formerly known as 
Natrona County Regional Water System 
Joint Powers Board, Appellee (Defendant).

 

                                

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona 
County, The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge.

 

    Keith P. Tyler, Casper, 
Wyoming, representing appellant.

 

    Donald E. Chapin of Crowell 
and Chapin, P. C., Casper, Wyoming, representing 
appellee.

 

    Before LEHMAN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN & HILL, JJ.

 

    MACY, 
Justice.

   
[¶1]      Appellant O'Quinn Enterprises appeals 
from the summary judgment which was entered in favor of Appellee Central Wyoming 
Regional Water System Joint Powers Board, formerly known as Natrona County 
Regional Water System Joint Powers 
Board, and from the order which denied its motion for a reconsideration of the 
ruling on the motion for a summary judgment.

 

  [¶2]      We affirm.

 

                               
ISSUES

 

  [¶3]      O'Quinn Enterprises presents the 
following issues for our review:

 

            1. Whether the 
trial court incorrectly limited its  consideration of interpretation of the 
contract to the four corners of the 
document.

 

            2. Whether 
certain provisions of the contract are ambiguous.

 

                
                FACTS

 

  [¶4]      O'Quinn Enterprises developed the 
O'Quinn Subdivision in Natrona County in the early 1980's. In describing the 
area wherein the subdivision is located, we must define the location of three 
main roads. Zero Road runs east and west 
and is intersected by Robertson Road and by J.C. Road. Both Robertson Road and 
J.C. Road run north and south, and Robertson Road is west of J.C. Road. The 
subdivision is located in the area south of Zero Road - Zero Road being the 
north boundary - and slightly east of Robertson Road.

 

  [¶5]      O'Quinn Enterprises arranged to obtain 
the water to supply the subdivision from Brooks Water and Sewer District. In 
order to serve the subdivision, O'Quinn Enterprises needed to install an 
eight-inch water line around the perimeter of the subdivision.  Brooks Water, however, required that a 
twenty-inch water line be installed 
along Zero Road between the J.C. Road and Robertson Road intersections because 
the City of Casper required that all lines on Zero Road be twenty inches to 
facilitate long-range plans for water service.

 

  [¶6]      At about the same time, 
Brinkerhoff-Signal, Incorporated requested permission to extend Brooks Water 
service from the intersection of Robertson Road and Zero Road to its location 
further west on Zero Road. That portion of line also had to be twenty 
inches.

 

  [¶7]    O'Quinn Enterprises and 
Brinkerhoff-Signal did oversize the line that ran along Zero Road. Brooks Water 
recognized that the extra costs associated with constructing a twenty-inch line 
should not be borne by O'Quinn Enterprises and Brinkerhoff-Signal.  To assist O'Quinn Enterprises and 
Brinkerhoff-Signal in recovering the costs of oversizing the line, Brooks Water 
entered into an agreement with them which provided a mechanism by which they 
could recapture their additional material costs for installing the twenty-inch 
line. The agreement provided that, under certain circumstances, any entity, 
other than the developers, that connected to the line would be required to pay the 
costs of the oversize.

 

  [¶8]      The Natrona County Regional Water System 
Joint Powers Board (Regional Water System) was formed to regionalize water 
treatment and transmission lines throughout central Wyoming in order to 
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Brooks Water entered into an agreement in October of 1995 to transfer all its 
transmission lines and water treatment facilities and equipment to the Regional 
Water System. Brooks Water made this conveyance subject to the recapture 
agreement that it had with O'Quinn Enterprises and 
Brinkerhoff-Signal.

 

  [¶9]      In 1997, the Regional Water System 
installed a sixteen-inch line in Zero Road and connected to both ends of the 
twenty-inch line.  O'Quinn 
Enterprises filed a complaint, alleging that these connections triggered the 
obligation to reimburse it for its costs plus interest pursuant to the recapture 
agreement.

 

  [¶10] 
  The Regional Water System 
filed a motion for a summary judgment, claiming that, because the connections by 
the Regional Water System were outside the J.C. Road and Robertson Road 
intersections with Zero Road and because 
the connections were made for the purpose of looping the system, it was not 
obligated to pay the recapture amount.

 

  [¶11] 
  The district court granted 
the motion for a summary judgment, finding that the agreement was unambiguous 
and that the connections at issue fell within the two exceptions set out in the 
agreement. O'Quinn Enterprises moved for a reconsideration of the summary 
judgment order and requested leave to amend its pleadings. The district court denied the motion, and 
O'Quinn Enterprises appeals to this Court.

 

                         
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

  [¶12] 
  A summary judgment is 
appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and when the 
prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter of law. Estate of 
Noell v. Norwest Bank Wyoming, N.A., 960 P.2d 499, 500 (Wyo. 1998). We review 
the record from the vantage point most beneficial to the nonmoving party, 
awarding that party all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the facts. 
Austin v. Kaness, 950 P.2d 561, 563 (Wyo. 1997). When a dispute does not exist 
with regard to the material facts, the 
question presented for our review is a question of law. Estate of Noell, 960 P.2d  at 500. We do not accord special deference to the district court's 
decisions on matters of law. Id.

  

                             
DISCUSSION

 

  [¶13] 
  O'Quinn Enterprises claims 
that the district court improperly ignored the parties' intent and instead 
limited its focus to the four corners of the document. It maintains that the 
agreement is ambiguous and that the district court should have considered the 
surrounding circumstances and the purpose of the contract.  Regional Water System replies that the agreement is 
not ambiguous and that the district court correctly concluded that the 
connections at issue fall within the exceptions to the recapture 
obligation.

 

  [¶14] 
  Whether a contract is 
ambiguous is a question of law. Springer v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 
Wyoming, 944 P.2d 1173, 1176 (Wyo. 1997). When contract provisions are not 
ambiguous or uncertain, the document 
speaks for itself, and parol evidence which tends to show that a prior or 
contemporaneous oral agreement or tacit understanding was made with respect to 
the agreement terms is not admissible. Kirkwood v. CUNA Mutual Insurance 
Society, 937 P.2d 206, 209 (Wyo. 1997). An ambiguity cannot be created by a 
disagreement between the parties as to 
the meaning of the contract, and the contract's language will not be 
"tortured" to create an ambiguity. 
Id.

 

            
"[W]here there is no ambiguity, all conversations, contemporaneous 
negotiations, and parol agreements between the parties prior to a written agreement are 
merged therein. In the absence of accident, fraud or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible 
for the purpose of contradicting, subtracting from, adding to, or varying the terms of such written 
instruments."

 

Schinnell v. Doyle, 496 P.2d 566, 568 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972) (quoting Fleetham v. Schneekloth, 324 P.2d 429, 
430 (Wash. 1958)). See also Patel v. Harless, 926 P.2d 963, 965-66 (Wyo. 
1996).

 

  [¶15] 
  The agreement in question 
provides in relevant part:

 

In the event parties other than [O'Quinn Enterprises] 
or Brinkerhoff-Signal, Incorporated desire to connect to the system provided for 
herein, a payment of the entire costs of materials, in excess of the eight inch (8") diameter pipe, valves, and 
connections plus interest at the rate of fifteen    
percent (15%) per annum, prorated on a daily basis, of such other lesser 
amount as may be granted by Assi[g]nor shall be paid to [O'Quinn Enterprises] and 
Brinkerhoff-Signal, Incorporated in proportion to the actual costs borne by each party as determined 
by [Brooks Water] at the completion and acceptance of the construction. No combination of 
payments described above shall be made in excess of $25,300.00, which is the 
amount of the actual costs of materials in excess of the eight inch 
(8") diameter pipe, valves, and 
connections, plus interest accrued to the date of final payment. 
These payments to [O'Quinn 
Enterprises] shall apply only to construction between the intersections of the 
J.C. Road and Robertson Road with 
Zero Road.

 

            In the event 
[Brooks Water] shall, for some purpose other than providing service to third 
parties, require the exten[s]ion or 
looping of the lines referenced herein, no payment as herein 
described above shall be 
required.

 

We conclude that this 
agreement is clear and unambiguous as a matter of law. We, therefore, will not 
consider parol evidence to interpret its provisions.

 

  [¶16] 
  The agreement specifically 
provides that a connection made for the purpose of looping the system is exempt 
from the recapture obligation. According to the unopposed affidavit of Dean 
Dickey, the director and project manager of the Central Wyoming Regional Water 
System Joint Powers Board: "No new customers have been added to the line since 
the construction. The only purpose for the construction of said line was to 
effect a looping of the system to insure continuous service to the existing 
water customers." Thomas Brauer, a civil engineer employed by Civil Engineering 
Professionals, Inc., analyzed, studied, and presented a plan for the regionalization of the existing and 
needed water production, treatment, and distribution facilities within central 
Wyoming. In his unopposed affidavit, he testified:

 

            6. The purpose 
for the installation of the Joint Powers Board's 16" line in Zero  Road was to serve as a loop of the system. . . 
.

 

            7. That the 
installation of the Board's 16" line in Zero Road was only for the purpose of 
connecting to its existing water 
transmission lines to provide a continuity of water supply to its customers. 
No new customers have been added to 
the Zero Road line.

 

  [¶17] 
  The purpose for the 
connection to the twenty-inch line on Zero Road was to loop the system. We hold 
that this connection is exempt under the agreement and that the recapture 
obligation was not triggered by the connection of the sixteen-inch line. Our 
decision on this issue is dispositive. We, therefore, will not address the remaining issues presented by O'Quinn 
Enterprises.  State v. McDermott, 
962 P.2d 136, 140-41 (Wyo. 1998).

 

  [¶18] 
  
Affirmed.