Case Title: Allendale Water and Sewer Dist. v. State ex rel. Hansuld

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Allendale Water and Sewer Dist. v. State ex rel. Hansuld1996 WY 99919 P.2d 146Case Number: 95-268Decided: 07/08/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
ALLENDALE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, a special district 
formed

 under the laws of the State of 
Wyoming,

 Appellant 
(Respondent),

v.

The STATE of Wyoming, ex 
rel., William HANSULD and Tia Hansuld, husband and wife, Appellees 
(Petitioners).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Natrona County, Dan R.

R.E. Rauchfuss 
of Beech Street Law Offices, Casper, for appellant.

Phillip T. 
Willoughby, Casper, for appellees.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J.,* and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

GOLDEN, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      The primary issue 
in this case is whether a writ of mandamus was properly entered against 
Appellant Allendale Water and Sewer District (District) by property owners 
claiming they had not received sufficient benefit from water and sewer 
improvements. We hold the writ of mandamus is not available as a remedy to 
resolve this issue. The order granting summary judgment to Appellees The State 
of Wyoming, ex rel., William Hansuld and Tia Hansuld, (Hansulds) is reversed and 
remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus and to 
hear the District's counterclaim.

[¶2]      District presents 
the following issues for our review:

1.         
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting summary 
judgment to Appellees declaring both the Lien and the Assessment filed by 
Allendale Water and Sewer District void and of no force and effect and invalid 
under Robbins v. South Cheyenne Water and Sewage District, 792 P.2d 1380 (Wyo. 
1990). 

2.         
Whether the trial court erred in not granting Appellant's Motion for 
Summary Judgment.

3.         
Whether Appellees were barred from challenging the legal validity of 
either the Lien or the Assessment by estoppel, the statute of limitations, 
laches or waiver.

4.         
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and 
parties.

5.         
Whether the trial court erred in not granting Appellant's Motion to 
Dismiss for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties.

6.         
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting Appellees' 
Writ of Mandamus and not granting Appellant's Motion to Dismiss because 
Appellees' Petition failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be 
granted.

[¶3]      Hansulds present 
these issues:

1.         Did 
the District Court lack jurisdiction to enter a final order.

A.        Were 
administrative remedies available to the Appellee.

B.        Was 
jurisdiction barred by a statute of limitations.

2.         Were 
necessary and indispensable parties not joined.

3.         Did 
Appellees' petition fail to state a cause of action upon which relief could be 
granted.

4.         Did 
the trial court err in granting Appellee's motion for Summary 
Judgment.

FACTS

[¶4]      In 1983, the 
Allendale Water and Sewer District (District) and the City of Casper entered 
into an agreement to replace water and sewer main lines in the Allendale 
District. The new main lines resulted in special assessments and mill levies 
against property in the Allendale District. The Hansulds' property, which they 
acquired in 1993, was assessed. The Hansulds acquired a tax lien on the property 
in the district and ultimately acquired title to it, but failed, however, to 
check for delinquent assessments. The property had delinquent assessment and 
levy charges of $2,668.58 against it for the years 1986 through 1992. The 
District filed a lien against the property on July 26, 1993. At District 
meetings, the Hansulds requested the assessment and levy charges be waived 
because the water and sewer main lines were at least 500 feet from the property. 
It was estimated it would cost $35 to $45 per linear foot to connect their 
property. The District determined it could not forgive the 
delinquencies.

[¶5]      On May 17, 1994, 
the Hansulds filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the District 
requesting an order be entered directing the officials of the District rescind 
the special taxation levied against the Hansulds' properties or construct lines 
to their property. In their petition, the Hansulds conceded that the District is 
granted authority to assess special assessment taxation to pay for the water and 
sewer improvements, but contended they were injured by excessive or improper 
special assessment taxes levied against their real property. That contention was 
supported by declarations that the District had benefitted some properties by 
providing water and sewer services to the property line whereas others, such as 
the Hansulds, would have to construct water and sewer mains within the roadways 
to their properties and then construct lines from the mains to actually serve 
the properties. To establish the elements for a writ of mandamus, the petition 
alleged that the District had failed to carry out or have carried out beyond its 
authority a ministerial duty which is defined and required by law:

Specifically, 1) they 
have assessed special taxation upon the petitioner's real property beyond the 
authority granted, 2) they have assessed special taxation upon the petitioner's 
property unequally and favorable to certain property owners, and 3) they have 
threatened to cause petitioner's property to be sold for taxes or the title 
clouded as a result of the inequality of the special assessment.

[¶6]      The District 
filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court denied, and a counterclaim 
seeking foreclosure on its lien. Following summary judgment motions by both 
parties, the district court granted summary judgment to the Hansulds and issued 
an order declaring the lien invalid and enlarging relief to include the 
declaration that the assessment was also invalid. This appeal 
followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      The basis for the 
district court's decision was its acceptance of Hansulds' contention that the 
assessment and lien were invalid as a matter of law because the constructed 
water and sewer mains did not serve or benefit their property. The district 
court relied on this Court's decision in Robbins v. South Cheyenne Water and 
Sewage District, 792 P.2d 1380 (Wyo. 1990).

[¶8]      Robbins held that 
the South Cheyenne Water and Sewage District (Cheyenne district) could not 
assert and foreclose its perpetual lien on property when no services, work, or 
materials had been furnished to owner. Robbins, 792 P.2d  at 1381. In Robbins, 
the Cheyenne district billed Robbins for a second water and sewer connection 
after learning there were two mobile homes on the property. Robbins refused to 
pay, contending these two homes constituted only one dwelling and demonstrating 
he had connected both to one water and sewer line. This practice was permissible 
when Robbins connected the two; however, the law later changed causing the 
Cheyenne district to bill Robbins for the permits, water tap, and connections he 
should have made for the second dwelling. When Robbins did not pay, the Cheyenne 
district asserted and foreclosed a lien on the property. This Court ruled that 
the district court did not have jurisdiction to foreclose the lien because the 
District did not actually provide any permits, services, or connections for the 
second water tap and sewer connection, as required by the statute, WYO. STAT. § 
41-10-113(a)(xxi) (1977). Robbins, 792 P.2d  at 1384.

[¶9]      Relying on that 
case, Hansulds asserted that Robbins prohibited a lien on property by a water 
and sewer district when improvements did not benefit the property. On that 
basis, the district court issued a writ of mandamus on motion for summary 
judgment and declared the assessment invalid. Robbins is not applicable to this 
case because it interpreted the statutory requirements for the assertion and 
foreclosure of liens for specific actions to a particular lot. Robbins, 792 P.2d  
at 1383-84. The issue presented by the order granted the Hansulds is whether an 
assessment and levy against property in a district for water and sewer mains is 
valid when the property owner must bear the cost of connecting his particular 
property to the mains.

[¶10]   A writ of mandamus will issue only 
where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation is peremptory 
and plainly defined. State ex rel. Sweetwater Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Ohman, 
895 P.2d 49, 54 (Wyo. 1995) (citing LeBeau v. State ex rel. White, 377 P.2d 302, 
303 (Wyo. 1963)). Mandamus is not the proper remedy if a plain and adequate 
remedy of law exists and cannot substitute for an appeal. Ohman, 895 P.2d  at 54; 
LeBeau, 377 P.2d  at 304.

The law must not only 
authorize the demanded action but require it; and the duty must be clear and 
undisputable.

*           
*         
  *           
*           
*           
*

[I]n order to warrant the 
issuance of mandamus, not only must there be a legal right in the relator, but 
owing to the extraordinary and drastic character of mandamus and the caution 
exercised by courts in awarding it, it is also important that the right sought 
to be enforced be clear and certain, so as not to admit of any reasonable 
controversy. The writ does not issue in cases where the right in question is 
doubtful.

Ohman, 895 P.2d  
at 54 (citing LeBeau, 377 P.2d at 303).

[¶11]   In this case, mandamus is not the 
proper remedy for determining whether the assessment is valid. Hansulds only 
offered the Robbins decision as authority that the law required the action and, 
as we have seen, were incorrect in doing so. Additionally, the Robbins decision 
discusses the remedy at law available to the Hansulds for resolving this issue. 
Robbins, 792 P.2d  at 1384-85. Robbins held that when the state, through a water 
and sewer district, seeks to terminate a property interest, the property owner 
is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful 
time and in a meaningful manner. Robbins, 792 P.2d  at 1385. We held that the 
statutory scheme governing the operation of water and sewer districts satisfies 
the basic requirement for due process of law. Id. As in Robbins, the Hansulds 
did have notice of the claims of the District and did have an opportunity to 
present any and all evidence that they chose and had an opportunity to challenge 
the District's conclusions. Robbins, 792 P.2d  at 1385. Since the District sought 
to foreclose their lien, like Robbins, Hansulds had further due process 
available through that process or could have brought a declaratory judgment or 
injunctive relief action unless a statute of limitations barred their action. 
Id.

[¶12]   When a reasonable controversy or an 
adequate remedy at law exists, mandamus is improper. The present state of the 
record does not permit us to address the other issues presented. The decision of 
the district court is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the 
petition for writ of mandamus and hear the District's counterclaim.