Title: In re Dunning

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

In re Dunning1999 WY 81982 P.2d 704Case Number: 98-238Decided: 06/10/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FOREST B. DUNNING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT

 

OF A PRIVATE ROAD, PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO., Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

 

SHERIDAN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellee 
(Respondent), and FOREST B. DUNNING, Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

                                

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification 
from the District Court of

Sheridan County Honorable John 
C. Brackley, Judge.

 

    
Representing Appellant:

    
Hayden F. Heaphy Jr. and Debra J. Wendtland, Sheridan, 
WY.

     
Representing Appellee Forest B. Dunning:

    
Timothy S. Tarver, Sheridan, WY.

 

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

 

    
HILL, Justice.

   
[¶1]      This appeal results from an order of the 
Sheridan County Board of Commissioners (the Board) establishing a private road 
in Sheridan County. The preliminary issue in this case is whether, in the 
absence of any appearance in the proceedings below, Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. 
(Kiewit) may appeal the adequacy of the damages awarded to Kiewit by the Board. 
If so, Kiewit contends that this Court must remand this case to the Board 
because the order failed to present separate findings of fact and conclusions of 
law. Kiewit further maintains that the record contains no evidence supporting 
the damages awarded, and therefore, on remand the Board must conduct an 
evidentiary hearing.  Because Kiewit 
failed to establish a record that it is an aggrieved party, we 
dismiss.

 

                               
ISSUES

 

  [¶2]      Kiewit presents the following issues for 
review:

 

1. Is the Commission's Order: arbitrary and 
capricious; without observance of procedures required by law; and not in 
accordance with law in violation of W.S. § 16-3-114 (c) (ii) (1997) 
[?]

 

2. Is the Commission's Order: unsupported by 
substantial evidence in violation of W.S. § 16-3-114 (c) (ii) (1997) 
[?]

 

  Appellee Forest B. Dunning raises the 
following additional issues:

 

3. Should the allegations set forth for the first 
time in the Appellant's Petition for Review, and the corresponding documents, 
which were never presented to either the viewers and appraisers of the County 
Commissioners, be disregarded by the Court?

 

4. Should Respondent Forest Dunning be awarded 
attorney's fees for this appeal?

 

                                
FACTS

 

  [¶3]      In 1995, Dunning petitioned to establish 
a private road for entry to his property in Sheridan County, pursuant to 
Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-101(Michie 1997).1 After proper notice to all with an 
interest in the lands over which the proposed road would cross, several 
landowners objected to the proposed location of the road. Kiewit, the owner of a 
coal haul road easement on one of the properties over which the proposed road 
would travel, received proper notice of Dunning's petition. Even so, Kiewit made 
no objection to the location of the road, and took no part in the subsequent 
contested case hearing.

 

  [¶4]      On completion of the contested case 
hearing, the Board denied Dunning's petition, and Dunning appealed the Board's 
decision.  Ultimately, in Dunning v. 
Akney, 936 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 1997), we held that Dunning was not required to provide 
notice to all landowners possessing property adjoining the land affected by the 
proposed road in order to present his petition in good faith. Id. at 66.  We reversed the Board's order and 
remanded the matter for further consideration.

 

  [¶5]      Prior to further Board action, all 
objecting parties reached a satisfactory resolution of the issues between them. 
Pursuant to Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-101, viewers and appraisers were appointed to 
determine the precise location of the road and the amount of any damages to the 
remaining interested parties. In accord 
with the statutory procedures, Kiewit received proper notice of the date on 
which the properties would be viewed but again chose to forego 
participation.

 

  [¶6]      The documented costs of the viewers and 
appraisers indicate that they collectively considered comparable values and 
drafted written findings for the Board. The findings stated that the damages to 
the landowners who had not reached a previous agreement with Dunning were 
minimal because the road was previously 
improved and in use. However, due to the extension of the width of the road, the 
viewers recommended damages to Kiewit in the amount of $537.10, and to the 
remaining property owners the amounts of $668.10 and $98.40, respectively. 
Kiewit received notice of the contents of the final findings and report 
submitted to the Board, but made no objection to the viewers and 
appraisers.

 

  [¶7]      As required by statute, the Board 
considered acceptance of the final findings and report at its next meeting. No 
written objection to the report was filed, nor were any objections voiced at the 
Board meeting. Absent opposition, the Board adopted the final findings and 
report of the viewers and appraisers, and approved the private road conditioned 
on Dunning's payment of damages and costs.

 

  [¶8]      Kiewit filed an appeal of the Board's 
Order in the district court of the Fourth Judicial District, claiming it was 
adversely affected by the Order because the damages awarded were insufficient. 
Kiewit requested the matter be returned to the Board because the Order failed to 
set forth separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to the 
mandates of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-1102, and that the damages were not 
supported by substantial evidence, in violation of Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(A).3 The case was then certified to this 
Court pursuant  to W.R.A.P. 
12.09.

 

                         
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

  [¶9]      When reviewing cases which have been 
certified to the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply 
the appellate standards which are applicable to the court of first instance. 
Scott v. McTiernan, 974 P.2d 966 (Wyo. 1999). As an initial matter, we determine 
de novo whether the appeal is properly before this Court, and, if judicial 
review of the agency action is appropriate, we apply the standards articulated 
in Wyo.Stat.Ann. 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997): Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)(E) (Michie 1997).

 

We examine the entire record to determine if there is 
substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision 
is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment 
for that of the agency, and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial 
evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept in support 
of the conclusions of the agency. It is more than a scintilla of 
evidence.

 

Snyder v. State ex rel. 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 957 P.2d 289, 292-93 (Wyo. 1998) (quoting 
Aanenson v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 
1992)). An agency's conclusions of law will be affirmed only if they are in 
accordance with law. Id.

 

                             
DISCUSSION

 

  [¶10] 
  As a threshold matter, we 
address Dunning's assertion that this appeal is not properly before this Court 
because Kiewit failed to participate in the proceedings before the Board. Kiewit 
counters that Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-103 provides a statutory right of appeal 
which does not require a person to be a party in the Board's proceedings. 
Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-103 (Michie 1997) provides:

 

Any person aggrieved by the action of the board or as 
to the amount of damages awarded, may appeal to the district court at any time 
within thirty (30) days after said road is finally established by said board of 
county commissioners.

 

Kiewit contends that the 
Board was statutorily required to assess damages before approving the road. 
Therefore, this issue was presented to the Board, and the only requirement to 
perfect review of the adequacy of damages is a timely filing of appeal.  While persuasive at first glance, this 
argument ignores the requirement that Kiewit must be aggrieved by the action of 
the board. " Kiewit has failed to properly present any evidence that it was 
aggrieved by the Board's actions.

 

  [¶11] 
  While it is clear that the 
issue of damages was before the Board, it is equally apparent that Kiewit did 
not inform the Board that the amount of damages was inadequate or unjust in any 
way. The Board made its decision only after the opportunity to object was 
afforded to all interested persons for a final time, and no facts were presented 
which would place the conclusions of the viewers and appraisers into question. 
It is only in its petition for review that Kiewit attempts to present facts 
which allegedly illustrate that the Board's order adversely affected 
Kiewit.  However, Kiewit's attempts 
to create a factual dispute are too late.

 

  [¶12] 
  Fairness to both the 
petitioner and the Board of Commissioners dictates that Kiewit's challenge be 
first presented to the Board of Commissioners, and that Kiewit place in the 
record evidence to support its position before it can seek judicial review. 
Wyoming Board of Equalization v. State ex rel. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, 
637 P.2d 248, 254 (Wyo. 1981). As early as 1905, this Court premised the 
constitutionality of the statutes governing the establishment of roads on proper 
notice to the affected landowners.4 Sterrit v. Young, 82 P. 946, 14 
Wyo. 46 (Wyo. 1905). In Sterrit, we stated, A[t] hat the owner of property taken 
from him by virtue of the right of eminent domain is entitled to notice and an 
opportunity to be heard upon the question of the amount of his compensation can 
hardly be questioned. " Sterrit, 82 P.  at 947. The responsibility to provide 
adequate notice to interested parties is found throughout the subsequent case 
law addressing the establishment of a private road. Martens v. Johnson County 
Board of Commissioners, 954 P.2d 375, 380 (Wyo. 1998); Carney v. Board of County 
Commissioners of Sublette County, 757 P.2d 556, 559-560 (Wyo. 1988); Gold v. 
Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, 658 P.2d 690, 695-696 
(Wyo. 1983).

  

  [¶13] 
  With the right to notice, 
however, comes the obligation of the party to present its case to the sitting 
board of commissioners.  For 
example, in Gold, where the petitioner challenged the due process afforded by 
Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-101, we stated, "Appellants, having been given the 
opportunity, failed to object and they 
cannot now be heard to successfully complain."  Gold, 658 P.2d  at 696. Thus, despite the 
seemingly permissive language providing that persons, rather than parties, may 
bring an appeal, there is an obligation squarely placed upon one afforded 
sufficient notice to first present any objections to the Board, and it is firmly 
rooted in precedent.

 

  [¶14] 
  This obligation is logical 
and consistent with the basic rule that questions should first be presented to 
the ultimate fact finder before seeking judicial review. Wyo.Stat.Ann. §§ 
24-9-101 through 24-9-103 (Michie 1997)grant the power and authority to 
establish a private road to the county commissioners in the respective counties. 
" Bush v. Duff, 754 P.2d 159, 164-65 (Wyo. 1988). In Wyoming Bancorporation v. 
Bonham, 527 P.2d 432, 439 (Wyo. 1974), we stated:

 

For a reviewing court to reach an asserted 
proposition of an appellant the issue must have been raised for decision before 
the administrative body or administrator responsible for the decision. This is 
admirably expressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United 
States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33, 73 S. Ct. 67, 68-69, 97 L. Ed. 54, where it is said:

 

'We 
have recognized in more than a few decisions, and Congress has recognized in 
more than a few statutes, that orderly procedure and good administration require 
that objections to the proceedings of an administrative agency be made while 
it has opportunity for correction in order to raise issues reviewable by the 
court. * * *'

 

(Emphasis added.) 
Furthermore, objections must have particularity so as to properly identify the 
question and to give notice of the contention. Matter of Town of Greybull, 560 P.2d 1172, 1179 (Wyo. 1977), (citing National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up 
Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 73 S. Ct. 287, 290-291, 97 L. Ed. 2d 
377).

 

  [¶15] 
  Not only has Kiewit failed 
to create a factual dispute before the Board, it has also failed to present 
additional facts to an appellate court which would show that the additional 
evidence is material, and good cause for failure to present it in the 
proceeding before the agency existed. " W.R.A.P. 12.08 (emphasis added). 
W.R.A.P. 12.08 provides:

 

If, before the date set for hearing, 
application is made to the reviewing court for leave to present additional 
evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court the additional 
evidence is material, and good cause for failure to present it in the proceeding 
before the agency existed, the reviewing court, in contested cases, shall order 
the additional evidence to be taken before the agency upon those conditions 
determined by the reviewing court. The agency may adhere to, or modify, its 
findings and decision after receiving such additional evidence, and shall 
supplement the record to reflect the proceedings had and the decision made. 
Supplemental evidence may be taken by the reviewing court in cases involving 
fraud, or involving misconduct of some person engaged in the administration of 
the law affecting the decision. In all cases other than contested cases, 
additional material evidence may be presented to the reviewing court.
 

Kiewit did not apply for 
leave to present additional evidence and has not provided any good cause for its 
failure to present the allegations contained in its petition for review to the 
Board.  Without record evidence 
before the Board, Kiewit failed to create any basis upon which a reviewing court 
could find Kiewit adversely affected or aggrieved by the Board's decision, a 
threshold requirement under Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-103. See also Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 
16-3-114(b)5. Without some record before the 
agency or the court, we will not assume that the Board's actions caused an 
adverse effect. Since Kiewit failed to take the opportunity to present its 
objections to the Board and failed to properly supplement the record, it cannot 
now demonstrate that it is an aggrieved person entitled to appeal. Therefore, 
this appeal is dismissed.

 

  [¶16] 
  As a final matter, Dunning 
has requested that we award him attorney's fees on appeal pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
10.05. We find that Kiewit filed briefs sufficiently addressing a valid legal 
question, and therefore, decline to do so.

 

                             
CONCLUSION

 

  [¶17] 
  To appeal the Board's 
actions under Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-103, the petitioner must be aggrieved by the 
action of the Board. When interested parties having notice pursuant to 
Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 24-9-101 fail to present objections to the Board prior to 
seeking judicial review and fail to show good cause for this omission, we have 
no basis on which to find that the party is, in fact, aggrieved by the Board's 
actions. Because Kiewit deprived the Board of the opportunity to correct 
unsubstantiated conclusions, if any existed, and failed to establish any proper 
record as to the adverse effect of the Board's decision on Kiewit, this appeal 
is dismissed.

 

  

FOOTNOTES

1 § 
24-9-101. Petition; hearing; appointment of viewers and appraisers. 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 least sixty (60) 
days prior to applying to the board, the applicant shall give notice in writing 
to the owner, resident agent or occupant of all lands over which the private 
road is applied for, of his intent to apply for a private road. If the owner of 
the land is a nonresident, and there is no resident agent upon which personal 
service can be had, then the notice may be published once a week for three (3) 
weeks in a newspaper published in the county. The last publication shall be at 
least thirty (30) days before the hearing of the application. 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 a day named in the order on the proposed road, and view and locate a 
private road according to the application therefor, and to assess damages to be 
sustained thereby. If for any reason the viewers and appraisers are unable to 
meet at the time set by the board to view the proposed road, they may fix some 
other date, but shall give notice in writing to the owner, resident agent or 
occupant of the lands over which the road is proposed to be laid of the time and 
place where the viewers will meet, at least ten (10) days before viewing the 
road, at which time and place all persons interested may appear and be heard by 
the viewers. Before entering upon their duties the viewers shall take and 
subscribe to an oath that they will faithfully and impartially perform their 
duties under their appointment as viewers and appraisers.  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, provided the location of the road 
shall not be marked out to cross the lands of any person whose lands were not 
described in the application and who was not given notice of the application. 
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.

  

2 § 
16-3-110. Contested cases; final decision; contents; 
notification.

 

A final 
decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or 
dictated into the record. The final decision shall include findings of fact and 
conclusions of law separately stated. Findings of fact if set forth in statutory 
language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the 
underlying facts supporting the findings. Parties shall be notified either 
personally or by mail of any decision or order. A copy of the decision or order 
shall be delivered or mailed forthwith to each party or to his attorney of 
record.

 

  Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-110 (Michie 
1997).

   

3 That 
statute requires reviewing courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, 
findings and conclusions found to be:

 

(A) 
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with law; [or]. . . .

 

(E) 
Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute.

 

     

4 Whether 
Kiewit, as an owner of an easement, is a "landowner" within the meaning of the 
statute is not before us on appeal.

  

5 
Further, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114(b) (Michie 1997) states:

 

(b) The 
supreme court's authority to adopt rules governing review from agencies to the 
district courts shall include authority to determine the content of the record 
upon review, the pleadings to be filed, the time and manner for filing the 
pleadings, records and other documents and the extent to which supplemental 
testimony and evidence may be taken or considered by the district court. The 
rules adopted by the supreme court under this provision may supersede existing 
statutory provisions.

 

  (Emphasis added.)

 At the 
time our rule regarding supplementary evidence was adopted, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 
24-9-103 governing Kiewit's statutory right of appeal was in existence. Thus, to 
the extent that our rules requiring Kiewit's presentation of evidence to the 
Board may conflict with this statutory right of appeal, the Rules take 
precedence pursuant to Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114 (b).