Title: WAGSTAFF v. SUBLETTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WAGSTAFF v. SUBLETTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS2002 WY 12353 P.3d 79Case Number: 01-81Decided: 08/20/2002
April Term, A.D. 2002

 

H. 
R. WAGSTAFF and EVELYN WAGSTAFF,

Appellants(Petitioners) 
,

v.

SUBLETTE 
COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS,

Appellee(Respondent),

                                                                                          

and

GRINDSTONE 
CATTLE COMPANY,

Appellee(Intervener/Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sublette County

The Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, 
Judge     

 
 
    

Representing 
Appellants:

James K. Lubing of James K. Lubing Law Office, Jackson, 
WY.

 
 
         

Representing 
Appellee Sublette County Bd. of County Comm'rs:

Dale Aronson, Sublette County Attorney, Pinedale, 
WY.

 
 
     

Representing 
Appellee Grindstone Cattle Co.:

Sharon M. Rose of Lavery & Rose, P.C., Evanston, 
WY.

 
 
        

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN,* KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

*Chief Justice at time of oral argument.

 
 
     

LEHMAN, Justice.

 

[¶1]      We 
review the actions of appellee, Sublette County Board of County Commissioners 
("Board"), establishing a private road and assessing damages.  We reverse and remand for an amended 
determination on damages, but otherwise affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellants, H. R. 
Wagstaff and Evelyn Wagstaff ("Wagstaffs"), set forth the following 
issues:

1.  The 
Sublette County Board of County Commissioners' order granting a private road was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance 
with law since the "Scott's Place" property has an outlet to, and connection 
with, a public road.

2.  The 
Sublette County Board of County Commissioners' order amending the viewers' 
report as to the road width was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 
not supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise not in accordance with 
law.

3.  The 
Sublette County Board of County Commissioners' $10,000 damage assessment and 
analysis of damages generally was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 
not supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise not in accordance with law. 

FACTS

[¶3]      Grindstone Cattle 
Company ("GCC") owns a piece of real property which is commonly known as 
"Scott's Place" and another parcel of real estate which is north and west of 
Scott's Place and is separated from Scott's Place by a strip of land owned by 
the State of Wyoming and the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM").  Wagstaffs own real property that adjoins 
Scott's Place to the south.  A title 
search established there are no easements or rights of way of record evidencing 
any legally enforceable access to Scott's Place.  While State Route 354 runs through 
Wagstaffs' property, it does not run through Scott's Place.  For over fifty years, GCC and its 
predecessors have had permissive use of a mile long roadway traversing 
Wagstaffs' land to access their property from State Route 354. 

[¶4]      In June 1998, 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-9-101 through -103 (Lexis 1999), GCC filed a 
petition with the Board to establish a thirty foot wide private road along the 
existing road on the Wagstaff property.  
At a September 15, 1998 hearing, the Board appointed viewers and 
appraisers.  In the ensuing report, 
the viewers and appraisers recommended the private road be located along the 
existing mile long roadway, limiting the width of a portion of that private road 
to twenty feet.  They assessed 
damages in the amount of $50,000.00. 

[¶5]      On March 2, 1999, 
the Board held a hearing on the report and received testimony from two of the 
viewers and two other witnesses.  
One of the witnesses, a contractor, assessed the increased cost for the 
Wagstaffs to maintain an existing irrigation ditch adjacent to and encroaching 
into the roadway at $20,000.00.  
Another witness, an appraiser, assessed a $16,682.00 damage estimate 
related to the devaluation of Wagstaffs' property and the loss of land under the 
easement.  Finally, the viewers' 
testimony established that the $50,000.00 damage estimate contained within their 
report was not performed using a "before and after" analysis.  

[¶6]      The Board again 
met on March 16, 1999, to consider those issues presented by the petition for 
the private road.  Ultimately the 
Board, in its Order Amending and Adopting Viewers Report and Conditional 
Declaration of Private Road, ordered that the established private road be at a 
width of thirty feet over the entirety of the length along the existing road and 
assessed damages in the amount of $10,000.00.  Wagstaffs filed a Petition for Review 
before the district court, which affirmed the Board's action.  Wagstaffs now appeal that decision.  

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶7]      We review the 
administrative order issued by the Board as if it had come directly to this 
court from the Board.  Dunning v. 
Ankney, 936 P.2d 61, 63 (Wyo. 1997) (citing State ex rel. Workers' 
Compensation Div. v. Fisher, 914 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Wyo. 1996)).  We examine the entire record to 
determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's 
findings of fact.  We may not 
substitute our judgment for that of the agency when substantial evidence 
supports its decision.  
Dunning, at 63 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Andren, 917 P.2d 178, 180 (Wyo. 1996)).  
"Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might 
accept in support of the agency's conclusions."  Dunning, at 63 (quoting 
Latimer v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 902 P.2d 706, 709 (Wyo. 
1995)).  We do not, however, defer 
to an agency's conclusions of law.  
If the correct rule of law has not been correctly applied, the agency's 
errors are to be corrected.  
Dunning, at 63; see also generally, Mayland v. Flitner, 
2001 WY 69, ¶10, 28 P.3d 838, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001) and Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882, 886 (Wyo. 2000).

DISCUSSION

Establishment 
of Private Road

[¶8]      Wagstaffs contend 
that the Board's decision to establish a private road in this case was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance 
with law since GCC's property has an outlet to, and connection with, a public 
road.  The Board received evidence 
of other possible routes to the Scott's Place property.  County Road 150, the "Pape Road," to the 
east of Scott's place, was deemed not to be a viable option because the Green 
River lies between Scott's Place and the Pape Road, and there is no existing 
access without bridging across the river.  
The only other possible means of access would be from the west and north, 
which would require traveling an extra 35 miles on State Route 354, County Road 
112, and County Road 115, and then traversing an additional 15 miles over dirt 
tracks across state and BLM property.  

[¶9]      Foundation for 
our review is found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (Lexis 1999)1:

Any 
person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may apply 
in writing to the board of county commissioners of his county for a private road 
leading from his premises to some convenient public road.  . . .  At the hearing, all parties interested 
may appear and be heard by the board as to the necessity of the road and all 
matters pertaining thereto.  Upon 
the hearing of the application, whether the owner or others interested appear or 
not, if the board finds that the applicant has complied with the law and that 
the private road is necessary, the board shall appoint three (3) disinterested 
freeholders and electors of the county, as viewers and appraisers, and shall 
cause an order to be issued directing them to meet . . . on the 
proposed road, and view and locate a private road according to the application 
therefor, and to assess damages to be sustained thereby. . . . The 
viewers shall then proceed to locate and mark out a private road in accordance 
with the application or in such other manner and location they deem appropriate 
. . . . The proposed road shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in 
width from a certain point on the premises of the applicant to some certain 
point on the public road, and shall be located so as to do the least possible 
damage to the lands through which the private road is located.  The viewers shall also at the same time 
assess the damages sustained by the owner over which the road is to be 
established and make full and true returns, with a plat of the road to the board 
of county commissioners.

[¶10]   We have previously discussed the 
statutory requirement of "necessity":

We 
agree with the district judge that the county commissioners' finding that the 
road was not "necessary" was unsupported by the evidence.  The evidence clearly demands the 
opposite conclusion.  We hold that 
any person whose land is so situated that it has no outletno legally 
enforceable means by which he can gain accesshas demonstrated necessity, as a 
matter of law, without there being a further need to show that he lives on that 
land or that it is being, or will be, used for some specific purpose nor was it 
proper to inquire into impact on adjoining owners (other than the owners whose 
land will be taken), financial interest of applicants, use for hunting, fences 
and improvements, or whether permissive access had been denied.  In our view, the word "necessary" in 
the statute refers only to the lack of the type of outlet we have described to a 
"convenient" public road.

Gold 
v. Board of County Comm'rs of Teton County, 
658 P.2d 690, 694 (Wyo. 1983) (quoting McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 
1286 (Wyo. 1980)); see also Walton v. Dana, 609 P.2d 461, 463-64 
(Wyo. 1980).

[¶11]   Specifically, in Walton, 
at 464, we found in support of our holding that the Danas had met their 
burden of proof of necessity under the statute:

There 
is presently a road connecting the Dana land with U.S. Highway 89 but they 
have no enforceable right to its use; so that road, therefore, cannot be 
considered an outlet.  There is no 
"convenient" way across the grantors' land because of swamps and a canal.  The distance to the Muddy String Road of 
one and one half miles, as compared to a distance of only one-quarter of a mile 
to U.S. Highway 89 is a further measure of convenience. 

(Emphasis 
added.)  We also recognized in 
Walton, as we did in Snell v. Ruppert, 541 P.2d 1042 (Wyo. 1975), 
that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 offers complete relief to the landowner who has 
no outlet from his land and that there was no requirement therein that a 
petitioner for a private road must overcome every obstacle standing in his way, 
regardless of the expense and impracticability if he has a common law way of 
necessity which he can claim.  Thus, 
we held that it is not a condition precedent to proceeding under § 24-9-101 that 
a landlocked owner must first proceed under any common law way of necessity he 
may have. 

[¶12]   In Martens v. Johnson County Bd. 
of Comm'rs, 954 P.2d 375, 380 (Wyo. 1998), we 
clarified:

In 
ascertaining the legislative intent from the language of the statute [Wyo. Stat. 
§ 24-9-101], we have noted that the legislature intended the procedure under 
the statute to provide in a local forum a readily available, economically 
affordable, and time efficient method to obtain a means of access to 
property.  McGuire v. 
McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1288 (Wyo. 1980).  We have also stated that an application 
for a private road under Wyo. Stat. § 24-9-101 must be brought in good faith, 
and that it was the legislature's intent that convenience and reason should 
prevail in the establishment of roads . . . .  Dunning, 936 P.2d at 64-65; Lindt 
v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 462 (Wyo. 1995); McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 
1286. . . . A landlocked property owner cannot be forced "to 
choose a wholly illogical, uneconomic, and unproductive road. 
[Dunning, at 65] (quoting Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. 
Murray, 811 P.2d 287, 290 (Wyo. 1991)). 

(Emphasis 
added.)

[¶13]   Finally, we have explicitly 
enumerated that there is no requirement in § 24-9-101 that a petitioner for a 
private road must overcome every obstacle standing in his way, regardless of the 
expense and impracticability, Miller v. Bradley, at 887 (citing 
Walton at 463); see also Mayland v. Flitner, ¶26, or that a 
landowner needs initially to proceed under any common law way of necessity he 
may have.  Accordingly, any apparent 
argument asserted to the contrary by the Wagstaffs lacks 
merit.

[¶14]   Wagstaffs further argue that 
because GCC has an outlet and connection with a public road across two 
unimproved dirt tracks extending over State and BLM property, GCC cannot show 
that its property is landlocked which would necessitate a private road to be 
established. In a related argument, Wagstaffs also claim that the Board's 
finding that GCC has no outlet to a convenient road and that the aforementioned 
unimproved dirt tracks did not constitute "public" roads were made in error as a 
matter of law.  We decline to so 
hold recognizing there are facts and applicable authority which require a 
contrary result. 

[¶15]   In addressing the possible means of 
access to GCC's property, evidence was received by the Board that a route to the 
east of that property to County Road 150, known as the "Pape Road" was 
unfeasible since there was no existing access to the Pape Road and the Green 
River laid between the GCC property and the Pape Road.  Therefore, this route, among other 
things, would require GCC to built a bridge over the Green River.  Additional evidence was presented that 
the only other possible means of access to Scott's Place would be from the west 
and north which would require additional travel of 35 miles on State Route 354, 
County Road 112 and County Road 115 to the other parcel owned by GCC and then 
traversing several additional miles over dirt tracks across State and BLM 
property.  The evidence revealed 
that County Road 115, for a distance of approximately 15 miles on this route, 
was not maintained during the winter months; and the dirt tracks located upon 
the State and BLM property were not maintained at any time, were solely passable 
in the summer months at a slow rate of speed, and were only used occasionally by 
hunters and not the general public.  

[¶16]   Wagstaffs further argue, relying on 
the case of McGuire, 608 P.2d  at 1287-88, that the unimproved dirt tracks 
on the State and BLM land must be considered public roads which give GCC access 
to Scott's Place.  The affidavit of 
Edwin R. James, President and Manager of First American Title Insurance Company 
of Sublette County, who is licensed by the State of Wyoming to issue title 
insurance, established that upon his review of the applicable land title 
records, that there was nothing within those records to establish that GCC had a 
documented right of access to the Scott's Place property.  Further, although the title policy 
issued by First American Title lists this route as an exception, this does not 
conclusively establish that the route upon the State and BLM land is legally 
accessible by GCC.  

[¶17]   We also find that the case of 
McGuire as to its ruling regarding public roads is distinguishable from 
this case.  No evidence was 
presented to the Board concerning GCC's access via this route other than that 
mentioned above, whereas in McGuire, the evidence disclosed that the 
public had traversed the BLM road for many years.  In addition, a realty specialist from 
the BLM testified in McGuire that any United States citizen may travel 
existing roads or trails on public land unless specifically closed by the BLM 
and that the BLM had no present plans to close the road there involved.  In this case, no evidence was presented 
that the public generally has the privilege to traverse the unimproved dirt 
tracks on the State and BLM land involved.

[¶18]   Moreover, even if we were to hold 
that the unimproved dirt tracks on the State and BLM land constituted public 
roads, such a determination is not definitive in the analysis that must be 
made.  As stated previously, the 
legislature in its enactment of § 24-9-101 intended that the term "outlet" be 
such that it affords the landowner access via a convenient public road and that 
convenience and reason prevail in the establishment of roads.  While Wagstaffs argue that GCC should be 
required to use the route over the State and BLM unimproved dirt tracks because 
GCC could file a petition to require the needed maintenance on County Road 115 
and the unimproved dirt tracks across the State and BLM property and spend 
additional monies to improve the State and BLM unimproved dirt tracks so they 
would be generally passable on a year round basis, requiring GCC to take such 
acts simply does not fall within the legislature's expressed 
intention.

[¶19]   A clear similarity exists between 
the facts presented in this case with those presented in Walton v. Dana, 
609 P.2d  at 463-64.   In 
Walton, this court found it unreasonable, given the legislature's 
recognized intent under § 24-9-101, to force the Danas to utilize a route to 
U.S. Highway 89 to which they had no enforceable right to use or to force them 
to build a road across the grantors' land over swamps and a canal.  This court also recognized that the 
distance to the Muddy String Road of one and a half miles, as compared to the 
distance of only one-quarter of a mile to U.S. Highway 89 was a valid 
consideration based on convenience.  
Id.  

[¶20]   Likewise, we hold that GCC cannot 
be required to construct a roadway with all the noted difficulties to the "Pape 
Road" or travel an extended route over State Route 354, County Road 112 and 
County Road 115 to its other parcel and then traverse several additional miles 
over unimproved dirt tracks across State and BLM property, a route which may not 
be legally enforceable, along roads which are not maintained during the winter 
months and along unimproved dirt tracks which are rarely used by the 
public.

[¶21]   In reviewing appeals from 
administrative bodies, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency 
as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence.  Under the present circumstances, the 
Board's finding of necessity is supported by substantial evidence. We also hold 
that the Board did not err as a matter of law in finding that GCC has no outlet 
to a convenient public road and that the unimproved dirt tracks did not 
constitute "public" roads.2 

Width 
of the Private Road

[¶22]   Wagstaffs argue that the Board 
amendment of the viewers' and appraisers' report as to the road width was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial 
evidence, and otherwise not in accordance with law. 

[¶23]   The Board reviewed the report of 
the viewers and appraisers for a thirty foot wide private road as requested by 
GCC and authorized in § 24-9-101, which provides that a private road, if 
established, shall not exceed thirty feet in width from a certain point on the 
premises of the applicant to some certain point on the public road.  That review process is envisioned by 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-103 (Lexis 1999) and provides in pertinent 
part:

The 
viewers and appraisers so appointed, or a majority of them, shall make a report 
to the county commissioners at the next regular session, of the private road so 
located by them, . . .  and if 
the commissioners are satisfied that such report is just, and after payment 
by the applicant of all cost of locating such road, and the damages assessed by 
the viewers, the commissioners shall order such report to be confirmed and 
declare such road to be a private road, and the same shall be recorded as such. 

(Emphasis 
added.)  Additionally, Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 18-3-504 (LexisNexis 2001) provides that each board of county 
commissioners may make such orders concerning the property of the county as it 
deems expedient, lay out, alter or discontinue any road running through the 
county, and perform such other duties as prescribed by 
law.

[¶24]   Finally, in trying to ascertain the 
intent of the legislature in its adoption of those applicable statutes regarding 
the establishment of private roads, we are again convinced that the legislature 
intended the procedure under these statutes to provide in a local forum a 
readily available, economically affordable, and time efficient method to obtain 
a means of access to property, and that convenience and reason should prevail in 
the establishment of roads. Martens v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm'rs, 954 P.2d  at 380, and those cases cited therein.  Accordingly, we hold the Board does have 
an ability, within its discretion, to modify a viewers' and appraisers' report 
when considering the establishment of a private road.

[¶25]   We also stated in Carney v. 
Board of County Comm'rs of Sublette County, 757 P.2d 556, 560-61 (Wyo. 
1988):

The 
statutory criterion for selection of a route for a private road is that the 
viewers and appraisers are to locate route that will "do the least possible 
damage to the lands through which such private road is located."  Section 24-9-101, W.S.1977.  In that regard, the route chosen need 
not be the most convenient and reasonable route possible, taking into account 
all possible routes, but it only need be a reasonable and convenient 
route.  McGuire v. 
McGuire, Wyo., 608 P.2d 1278 (1980).  
The statute does not specify those things the viewers and appraisers are 
to consider other than the "least possible damage" to the property.  The legislature has directed, however, 
that these viewers and appraisers should be three disinterested freeholders and 
electors of the county, and, presumably, that requirement contemplates that they 
will be knowledgeable with respect to the local conditions and will apply 
that knowledge and their common sense in arriving at a 
determination.

(Emphasis 
added.)  It is also inherently 
reasonable, if not an absolute requirement, that the Board utilize its own 
knowledge and common sense in complying with its fiduciary duties in its review 
and ultimate establishment of a private road.

[¶26]   In determining that the width of 
the private road should be at a width of thirty feet over its entire length, the 
Board initially discussed the necessary width should any subdivision take place 
in the future.  The Board then 
reviewed in detail the testimony given by the viewers and appraisers as to width 
and the plat of the private roadway proposed by a state registered professional 
licensed surveyor admitted into evidence at a hearing before the Board.  The surveyor was also asked to comment 
on his proposed plat and the width of the private road.  It was expressly recognized that the 
plat was reviewed and referred to by the selected viewers and appraisers.  Finally, the Board discussed issues 
which regarded the ditch and a bridge involved and the property line as it 
concerned the width of the private road.  

[¶27]   Under the applicable abuse of 
discretion standard, we determine whether the trial court could reasonably 
conclude as it did and whether any part of its ruling was arbitrary and 
capricious.  Thompson v. Board of 
County Comm'rs of County of Sublette, 2001 WY 108, ¶7, 34 P.3d 278, ¶7 (Wyo. 
2001) (citing Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo. 1998)).  Upon review of the record, we are not 
persuaded that the Board abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary or 
capricious manner in determining that the width of the private road should be 
thirty feet in width along its entire length.   The Board reviewed the issues and 
facts before it, yet disagreed with the proposal made by the viewers and 
appraisers.  Sufficient evidence 
existed as the basis for the Board's ultimate width 
determination.

Assessed 
Damages

[¶28]   Finally, Wagstaffs assert the 
Board's $10,000.00 damage assessment and analysis of damages generally was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial 
evidence, and otherwise not in accordance with law. 

[¶29]   The Board held a hearing on the 
report of the viewers and appraisers.  
At that time, testimony was elicited from two of the viewers and 
appraisers and two other witnesses.  
In particular, a contractor testified concerning his assessment that the 
increased cost for the Wagstaffs to maintain an adjacent irrigation ditch 
amounted to $20,000.00.  Another 
witness, an appraiser, assessed a $16,682.00 damage estimate related to the 
devaluation of the Wagstaffs' property and the loss of land under the 
easement.  Additionally, the 
viewers' and appraisers' testimony clearly established that the $50,000.00 
damage estimate contained within their report was not performed using a "before 
and after" analysis.  Thereafter, 
the Board in its Order Amending and Adopting Viewers Report and Conditional 
Declaration of Private Road assessed damages in the amount of $10,000.  The Board, however, did not specifically 
give any basis for its reduction of damages.   

[¶30]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (Lexis 
1999) provides, in applicable part:

Upon 
the hearing of the application, whether the owner or others interested appear or 
not, if the board finds that the applicant has complied with the law and that 
the private road is necessary, the board shall appoint three (3) disinterested 
freeholders and electors of the county, as viewers and appraisers, and shall 
cause an order to be issued directing them to meet . . . on the proposed road, 
and view and locate a private road according to the application therefor, and to 
assess damages to be sustained thereby. . . .  The viewers shall . . . assess 
the damages sustained by the owner over which the road is to be established and 
make full and true returns, with a plat of the road to the board of county 
commissioners.

Wyo. 
Stat. § 24-9-103 (Lexis 1999), further states:

The 
viewers and appraisers so appointed, or a majority of them, shall make a report 
to the county commissioners at the next regular session, of the private road so 
located by them, and also the amount of damages, if any, assessed by them, and 
the person or persons entitled to such damages, and if the commissioners are 
satisfied that such report is just, and after payment by the applicant of all 
cost of locating such road, and the damages assessed by the viewers, the 
commissioners shall order such report to be confirmed and declare such road to 
be a private road, and the same shall be recorded as such.

[¶31]   We have had occasion previously to 
address the issue of establishing damages as it relates to applications for a 
private road under §§ 24-9-101 et seq.  In Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 463 (Wyo. 1995), we stated:

The 
Lindts claim the damage award is improper.  
It is evident from the proceedings before the Board that the directions 
given the Board by the district court in its remand order were not observed or 
understood.  Therefore, we remand to 
the district court with directions that the district court remand to the Board 
and the Board reassemble the viewers and appraisers, or if necessary a different 
body of viewers and appraisers, and those viewers and appraisers assess damages 
as follows: (1) determine the value of the entirety of the Lindts' affected land 
before the private road was established; then, (2) determine the value of the 
Lindts' remaining land after the private road is in place; (3) subtract the 
"after" value from the "before" value, which then equals the damages due the 
Lindts.  Coronado Oil Co. v. 
Grieves, 642 P.2d 423, 433 (Wyo. 1982); and see generally Mettee v. 
Kemp, 236 Kan. 781, 696 P.2d 947, 949 (1985) (discussing Kansas statute 
which enumerates factors which may be considered in the "before-after" 
analysis).

See 
also Mayland v. Flitner, 
2001 WY 69, ¶¶35-39 and Miller v. Bradley at 888- 
89.

[¶32]   Since review of the record before 
us makes it apparent that the appropriate review as to the issue of damages 
using the required "before-after" analysis was not conducted, we remand this 
matter back to the district court with directions that the district court remand 
this matter to the Board and the Board reassemble the viewers and appraisers or, 
if necessary, a different body of viewers and appraisers, and those viewers and 
appraisers assess those damages incurred by the Wagstaffs, if any, using the 
necessary prescribed "before-after" analysis.   

CONCLUSION

[¶33]   We affirm the Board's establishment 
of a private road in the width of thirty feet over the entirety of its length as 
provided in the Board's Order Amending and Adopting Viewers Report and 
Conditional Declaration of Private Road.  
However, we reverse that portion of the order assessing damages and 
remand for the proper assessment of damages as required by established law 
consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1We 
note that the legislature amended this statute in 2000, clarifying the 
procedures to establish a private road.

2Wagstaffs 
also infer that they were not granted due process by those hearings held before 
the Board as required by § 24-9-101.  
To the contrary, the Board afforded Wagstaffs an opportunity to appear 
before the Board to contest both the taking and the damage awards determined as 
is explicitly required under the statute.  
See Martens v. Johnson County Board of Commissioners 954 P.2d  at 
380.  Further, the Wagstaffs were 
notified of the Board's last hearing regarding the involved private road but 
chose not to attend this hearing.