Title: TEN BROEK v. COUNTY OF WASHAKIE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

TEN BROEK v. COUNTY OF WASHAKIE2003 WY 16482 P.3d 269Case Number: 03-45Decided: 12/22/2003
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2003

                                                                                                
   

DARELL TEN BROEK and BONNIE TEN BROEK,

 
 
     

and

 

BARBARA 
G. CHANEY and JAY S. CHANEY,

TRUSTEES 
OF THE BARBARA G. CHANEY

LIVING 
TRUST, DATED OCTOBER 3, 1997,

Appellants(Defendants) ,

 
 

v.

                                                                                                

COUNTY 
OF WASHAKIE,

Appellee(Plaintiff) .

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Washakie County

Representing 
Appellants:

Kent A. Richins, Worland, Wyoming

 
 
   

Representing 
Appellee:

G. Albert Sinn, Washakie County Attorney, Worland, 
Wyoming

 
 
      

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

 
 
        

            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
  

[¶1]      Darell and Bonnie 
Ten Broek, along with Barbara G. and Jay S. Chaney as trustees of the Barbara G. 
Chaney Living Trust (collectively the Defendants), appeal an order of the 
district court on a complaint for declaratory judgment filed by the County of 
Washakie (the County) to establish a stock trail over a portion of their land 
pursuant to a prescriptive easement.  
We conclude that a declaratory judgment is not the appropriate means to 
establish a prescriptive public easement because the legislature has established 
a specific statutory procedure that requires such claims to be brought initially 
before the respective board of county commissioners.  Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and reverse and remand 
with directions to dismiss the County's complaint without prejudice.

 
     
            
  

[¶2]      The Defendants set 
forth two issues:

 
  
   

1.                  
Did 
the district court commit reversible error when, as a matter of law, it 
concluded that Washakie County does have legal authority to establish a public 
stock trail by prescriptive easement on private property?

2.                  
Are the findings and conclusions of the district court that 
a public stock trail has been established by Washakie County on private property 
by prescriptive easement clearly erroneous, not supported by substantial 
evidence and contrary to law?

 
 
              
           
          

The County's statement of the issues parallels that of the 
Defendants.

 
 
         

[¶3]      The Defendants 
own land in Washakie County.  In 
October 1999, the Defendants, acting individually, purchased small strips of 
property adjacent to their own land.  
The purchased property lay between the Defendants' land and U.S. Highway 
16.1  The property was in a state of neglect 
with sinkholes, dilapidated fences, overgrowing vegetation and abandoned 
vehicles on it.  The 
Defendants cleaned up the property and moved their fence lines to encompass 
their purchases.

 
  
            

[¶4]      In June 2000, the 
County filed a Declaratory Judgment action against the Defendants.  The County alleged that the property 
purchased by the Defendants had been designated in historical documents as a 
stock trail.  The County also 
asserted that the public had used the property as a stock trail continuously 
since at least 1904 and that the fencing of it interfered with that use.  The County requested a declaration from 
the district court that the property was subject to an easement for a stock 
drive as part of the adjacent road and that the Defendants be ordered to 
relocate their fences.  An 
unrecorded hearing was held before the district court.  On May 4, 2001, the district court 
issued a decision letter concluding that the County had established a 
prescriptive easement over the Defendants' property.  The district court held two more 
hearings where additional evidence was taken in response to motions for 
reconsideration and for rehearing filed by the Defendants.  The district court issued an order on 
December 18, 2002 confirming its original conclusion that the County had 
established a prescriptive easement.  
The Defendants have appealed that 
order.

 
     

[¶5]      When a matter is 
tried before the district court without a jury, we review the court's findings 
of fact pursuant to a clearly erroneous standard.  Any conclusions of law are reviewed 
de novo.  Davis v. 
Chadwick, 2002 WY 157, ¶ 8, 55 P.3d 1267, ¶ 8 
(Wyo. 2002).

 
   

[¶6]      The Defendants' 
main argument is that the County does not have any legal authority to establish 
a stock trail by prescription across private property.2  The underlying premise to the argument 
is that there is no specific statutory provision authorizing a county to bring 
an action to establish a public stock trail by prescription.  Under the facts of this case, the 
Defendants' argument is one of semantics.  
The phrase "stock trail" is just descriptive of a public use on the 
adjacent road.  In other words, the 
County is claiming that the public has used U.S. Highway 16, also called Big 
Horn County Road No. 91, and the portion of the Defendants' land adjacent to 
that road to drive livestock.  The allegations in the County's complaint 
clearly demonstrate the relationship between the Defendants' property and the 
road:

 
 
         
      

1.                  
The 
Defendant's [sic] in this matter are owners and/or trustees in fee simple of the 
areas on the South portion of Section 17, Township 47N, Range 
88W.

2.                  
During 
the late fall of 1999, the Defendants' [sic] Chaney, removed a pole and post 
fence and re-erected it some feet south, where it is presently 
located.

3.                  
Defendants' 
[sic] Ten Broek, built a post and wire fence some feet south from an old highway 
right-of-way fence, where it is presently located.

4.                  
The 
Washakie County Commissioners commissioned R.L. Hudson, Land Surveyor, to survey 
this area which he did and a Letter of Transmittal and Report of Surveyor dated 
March 22, 2000, was given to the Washakie County 
Commissioners.

5.                  
The 
Big Horn County Commissioners on or about July 6, 1904, declared the area on the 
boundary line between Section 17 and Section 20, in Tracts 65 and 55, and 56 of 
the re-survey Township 47N, Range 88W, to be a county 
road.

6.                  
A 
notation appears on the 1910 Plat of Ten Sleep, Big Horn County, Wyoming, on 
file in the Washakie County Clerk's Office, which labels this road as main 
street with a 66 foot right-of way centered on the section line center of county 
road with a bearing of S89°, 
42 minutes west.  The road was 
reconstructed in 1922 and designated as a state highway on November 25, 1929, 
under project number 108E.  The 
location was easterly along the tract line, then north easterly through a curve 
to the left and then a curve to the right in the vicinity of the Ten Broek and 
Chaney property lines.

7.                  
That 
highway was in use until approximately 1936, when highway 16 was constructed in 
its present location and designated as such on November 28, 1939, still under 
project number 108E.

8.                  
U.S. 
Highway 16 was re-constructed in the 1960's [sic] under project F-036-1(17) on 
which plan the road in question was noted as a stock 
drive.

9.                  
The minutes of the Washakie County Board of Commissioners 
meeting on September 1, 1936, record a motion by Commissioner Horel, and its 
adoption whereby;

 
            
          

"Whereas 
a new highway is being constructed from Big Cottonwood Creek to Ten Sleep, 
Wyoming, re replace from said Cottonwood Creek to Ten Sleep, the present highway 
No.1 16;" and "Whereas, the State Highway Department of the State of Wyoming is 
agreeable to leaving in place the old treated timber bridges and all of the 
culverts on the present Worland-Ten Sleep road from Big Cottonwood Creek into 
Ten Sleep provided that said present road is designated as a stock driveway and 
cattle run instead of the new road which is in the process of construction; now 
therefore, Be it Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of 
Washakie, State of Wyoming, that the present Worland-Ten Sleep road, being 
highway No. 16, from Big Cottonwood Creek into Ten Sleep, be and the same is 
hereby designated as a stock driveway and cattle run."

10.             
A 
Warranty Deed from Nichols to a prior predecessor of the Defendants, the Wyoming 
Game and Fish Commission, recorded in 1944, contains a metes and bounds 
description concerning the Ten Broek lands that mentions a fence line.  The existence of the old fence line 
varies between 33 and 23 feet north of the tract line prior to March 4, 
1944.

11.             
A 
certified land corner recordation report prepared by Mr. Stanton Able, Licensed 
Professional Surveyor for the State of Wyoming, recorded on February 4, 1985, 
for corner 4 of tract 54, also being corner 1 of tract 56, states that corner as 
being 31 feet from the north fence.  
The map on the reverse side dated December 19, 1984, indicates a fence to 
exist along the north side of the old highway route.

12.             
R.L. 
Hudson's State of Wyoming Corner Report also shows a tie to one remaining old 
fence post north of the road to be 31 feet north of the tract line having been 
measured by Hudson on March 16, 2000.

13.             
The 
stock drive has been used as a public road and stock drive continuously since 
1904 for parking cars, rodeo events, football games, driving livestock, etc. 
Livestock has been [sic] driven through the north 33 feet of the stock drive 
continuously since before 1937.

14.             
Sometime 
in the fall of 1999, the Defendants removed the old fence with the exception of 
one fence post on the North side and re-erected new fences further south into 
the 66 foot stock drive.

15.             
The 
Chaney fence encloses approximately .15 acres of the stock drive, thereby 
eliminating any use by the public.

16.             
The Ten Broek fence encloses approximately .75 acres of the 
stock drive, thereby eliminating any use by the public.

 
 
            
     

Whatever 
label is attached, the County is claiming that a portion of the Defendants' 
property is part of the adjacent road designated as U.S. Highway 16/Big Horn 
County Road No. 91.3  The parties agree that the resolution of 
that claim is dependent on whether the County established a prescriptive use 
across the Defendants' property.  
The legislature has specifically granted counties the right to establish 
public highways, including by prescription.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101 (Lexis/Nexis 2003). Accordingly, we reject the 
Defendants' contention that the County lacked the authority to establish the 
"stock trail" in question across their lands through the common law doctrine of 
prescription.

 
      
           
            
      

[¶7]      We must, however, 
reverse and vacate the district court's decision granting the prescriptive 
easement to the County.  As noted in 
the facts above, the County prosecuted this action through a declaratory 
judgment claim brought in the district court.  The legislature has established a 
specific procedure for the establishment of a public road by prescription in the 
above-mentioned Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, which provides:

 

(a)    On 
and after January 1, 1924, all roads within this state shall be highways, which 
have been or may be declared by law to be state or county highways.  It shall be the duty of the several 
boards of county commissioners, within their respective counties, prior to said 
date, to determine what, if any, such roads now or heretofore traveled but not 
heretofore officially established and recorded, are necessary or important for 
the public use as permanent roads, and to cause such roads to be recorded, or if 
need be laid out, established and recorded, and all roads recorded as aforesaid, 
shall be highways.  No other roads 
shall be highways unless and until lawfully established as such by official 
authority.  Except, nothing 
contained herein shall be construed as preventing the creation or establishment 
of a public highway right-of-way with reference to state and county highways 
under the common-law doctrines of adverse possession or prescription either 
prior to or subsequent to the enactment hereof.  If any such board shall resolve the 
creation or establishment of a public highway right-of-way based upon the 
common-law doctrines of adverse possession or prescription, it shall, following 
the filing of a plat and accurate survey required in accordance with the terms 
and provisions of W.S. 24-3-109, proceed with the publication of the proposed 
road for three (3) successive weeks in three (3) successive issues of some 
official newspaper published in the county, if any such there be, and if no 
newspaper be published therein, such notice shall be posted in at least three 
(3) public places along the line of the proposed road, which notice shall be 
exclusive of all other notices and may be in the following form: 

[Form 
omitted] 

(b)    The 
county commissioners shall cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed by 
registered or certified mail to all persons owning lands or claiming any 
interest in any lands over or across which the road is proposed to be created or 
established.  The publication, 
posting and mailings of such notice shall be a legal and sufficient notice to 
all persons owning lands or claiming any interest in lands over which the 
proposed road is to be created or established.  No viewers or appraisers shall be 
appointed, nor shall any damage  
claims  be   considered  or  
heard,  and   the   sole     objections 
to be heard by the board shall be directed against the creation or establishment 
of such right-of-way under the common-law doctrines of adverse possession or 
prescription. Any objector may appeal from the final decision of the board of 
the county commissioners to the district court of the county in which the land 
is situated. Notice of such appeal must be made to the county clerk within 
thirty (30) days after such decision has been made by the board, or such claim 
shall be deemed to have been abandoned.  
Within ten (10) days 
after the notice of an appeal is filed in his office, the county clerk shall 
make out and file in the office of the clerk of the district court, in his 
county, a transcript of the papers on file in his office, andthe 
proceedings of the board in relation to such creation and establishment.  The proceedings on appeal shall be 
governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.  If the appeal is upheld the appellant shall be reimbursed by the county 
for all reasonable costs of asserting his claim.

       
             

(c)    Only that portion of the state highways actually used, 
travelled or fenced, which has been used by the general public for a period of 
ten (10) years or longer, either prior to or subsequent to the enactment hereof, 
shall be presumed to be public highways lawfully established as such by official 
authority and unavailability of records to show such to have been lawfully 
established shall not rebut this presumption.

 
             
                
              
          
              

(d)    Only that portion of county highways, not to exceed 
sixty-six (66) feet in width, which was actually constructed or substantially 
maintained by the county and traveled and used by the general public for a 
period of ten (10) years or longer, either prior to or subsequent to the 
enactment hereof, shall be presumed to be public highways lawfully established 
as such by official authority.

 
 
             
           
               
             
          

The 
County asserts that a declaratory judgment action is an appropriate means of 
determining this matter.  The County 
notes that a declaratory judgment action is a remedial action that is to be 
liberally construed and applied.  It also argues that 
the Defendants were provided with procedural and substantive due process in the 
proceedings before the district court.

 
 
           
        

[¶8]      The problem with 
the County's approach is that it takes the authority to make the initial 
decision away from the legislatively designated body and places that authority 
with the entity that was legislatively designated as the appellate court in the 
matter.  We have 
addressed this very issue before and clearly stated that it is not a proper 
utilization of a declaratory judgment action:

 
     
              
  

However, 
the added element which may be considered in cases such as this is the status of 
a declaratory judgment action filed in a court which is an appellate 
court for the same issue presented, or able to be presented, below.  Here the declaratory judgment action was 
filed in the district court.  The 
district court is designated the appellate court for judicial review of 
administrative actions.

Ordinarily, 
a declaratory judgment action is not a substitute for an appeal.  School Districts Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 
10, Campbell County v. Cook, Wyo., 424 P.2d 751 (1967); Stahl v. 
Wilson, Fla.App., 121 So. 2d 662 (1960); Sparks v. Brock & Blevins, 
Inc., 274 Ala. 147, 145 So. 2d 844 (1962); and Bryarly v. State, 232 
Ind. 47, 111 N.E.2d 277 (1953).  But 
such direct action is often available "even though there was a statutory method 
of appeal," School Districts Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10, Campbell County v. 
Cook, supra, 424 P.2d  at 755.  
Here, there is no appeal actually pending and the issues are not 
moot.

However, 
there is a restriction on the availability of a declaratory judgment action with 
reference to its applicability to administrative matters.  Where the action would result in a 
prejudging of issues that should be decided in the first instance by an 
administrative body, it should not lie.  
This is because, if it be otherwise, all decisions by the several 
agencies could be bypassed, and the district court would be administering the 
activities of the executive branch of the government.  Public Service Commission of Utah v. 
Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 73 S. Ct. 236, 97 L. Ed. 291 (1952); and City of 
Cheyenne v. Sims, Wyo., 521 P.2d 1347 (1974).  This restriction on 
the scope of declaratory judgments is akin to the requirement that 
administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial relief is 
available.
      
          
       

Accordingly, 
where the relief desired is in the nature of a substitution of judicial decision 
for that of the agency on issues pertaining to the administration of the subject 
matter for which the agency was created, the action should not be entertained. 
If, however, such desired relief concerns the validity and construction  of  
agency  regulations,  or  
if   it  concerns   theconstitutionality 
or interpretation of a statute upon which the administrative action is, or is to 
be, based, the action should be entertained.  This is no more than that obviously and plainly provided for in the 
language of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

 
        
           

Rocky 
Mountain Oil and Gas Association v. State, 
645 P.2d 1163, 1168-69 (Wyo. 1982). See also, City of Cheyenne v. Sims, 
521 P.2d 1347, 1349-50 (Wyo. 1974) ("Declaratory judgment should not be used to 
usurp or replace specific administrative relief, particularly when the initial 
decision is committed to an administrative body.")  A board of county commissioners is 
considered an agency under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-101(b)(i) 
(Lexis/Nexis 2003); Holding's Little America v. Board of County Commissioners 
of Laramie County, 670 P.2d 699, 701-02 (Wyo. 1983).  The subject of the County's action does 
not concern the validity or construction of an agency regulation or the 
constitutionality or interpretation of a statute.  Rather, the relief requested by the 
County in this matter pertains to a matter that has been legislatively consigned 
to determination by an administrative agency.  The use of a declaratory judgment action in these circumstances was 
improper.

 
       
    

CONCLUSION

 

[¶9]      Since the proper 
procedures were not followed, we vacate the district court's order and reverse 
and remand the matter to the district court with instructions to dismiss the 
County's complaint.  The County may pursue its claim, if it desires, as directed by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 24-1-101.

 
   
             

FOOTNOTES

 

  1The highway was 
designated a county road by the Big Horn County Commissioners in 1906.  Washakie County was created out of part 
of Big Horn County in 1911.  The highway is still 
referred to as Big Horn County Road No. 91.

 
 
           

  2The Defendants' 
second issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district 
court's ruling.  Given our conclusion that a county may not use 
a declaratory judgment action to establish a prescriptive easement, the issue is 
moot, and we will not address it in this appeal.

 
  
             
               

  3We note that in 
Wyoming stock may be driven on any county road unless the respective board of 
county commissioners has specifically declared that a certain road is not to be 
used for that purpose.  See 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-1-121 & 122 (Lexis/Nexis 
2003).