Title: CARL W. CLOSS and EMMA LOU CLOSS V. JAMES D. SCHELL and DEBRA L. SCHELL; and THE CONVERSE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CARL W. CLOSS and EMMA LOU CLOSS V. JAMES D. SCHELL and DEBRA L. SCHELL; and THE CONVERSE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS2006 WY 95139 P.3d 435Case Number: 05-243Decided: 07/31/2006
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
CARL W. CLOSS and EMMA LOU 
CLOSS,

 
 
Appellants

(Petitioners),

 
 
v.

 
 
JAMES D. SCHELL and DEBRA L. 
SCHELL; and THE CONVERSE COUNTYBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

 
 
Appellees

(Respondents).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofConverseCounty

The Honorable Keith G. 
Kautz, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

Charles S. Chapin, of Crowell, Chapin, & 
Dixon, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellees:

James A. Hardee, Douglas, Wyoming.

                        
            

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

 
 
* Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      James and Debra 
Schell are owners of property in ConverseCounty.  They applied to the Board of County 
Commissioners of ConverseCounty (the Board) for establishment of a 
private road to obtain access from their property to a public road.  The Board determined that a private road 
was necessary and established a road that crossed the property of Mr. and Mrs. 
Closs.  The Board also awarded 
damages to the Closses for the taking of their property.  Dissatisfied with the location of the 
road and the amount of damages, the Closses filed a petition for review with the 
district court.  The district court 
affirmed the Board's decision.  We 
also affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      The issues 
are:          

 
 

A.                 
Did the 
viewers/appraisers properly determine the "before and after value" as required 
by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(j) and did the Board inappropriately disregard 
and/or dismiss the comparables relied upon by the Closses' appraiser when 
determining the extent of damages?

 
 

B.                 
Were the Closses deprived 
of due process because viewer/appraiser Sorenson did not attend the final 
hearing?

 
 

C.                
Was the viewing/appraisal 
process nullified because the viewers/appraisers were directed that the private 
road had to exit from the Closses' property at a point which intersected with an 
easement acquired by the Closses from a third-party?

 
 

D.                
Is the final report of 
the viewers/appraisers invalid because a plat of the chosen road was not filed 
contemporaneously with the report?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The Schells 
purchased a parcel of recreational property in ConverseCounty in 1985.  The Schells believed that their property 
was accessible by a permanent right-of-way easement on a two-track road that 
traversed land owned by the Closses and Vincent Gronski.1  The Schells later discovered that this 
easement was not legally enforceable.2

 
 
[¶4]      The Schells 
sought to obtain easements from the Closses and Mr. Gronski to formally secure 
access to their property.  After 
those attempts failed, the Schells filed an application for a private road 
easement.3  The application alleged that the 
property was landlocked and the most convenient access to the property was via 
the two-track road.  Prior to the 
initial hearing on the application, Mr. Gronski granted an easement to the 
Schells and was released from the proceedings.  The Closses continued to refuse to grant 
an easement, but submitted a proposal for an alternate route.  

 
 
[¶5]      In accordance 
with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(c), the Board held an initial hearing on the 
petition.  The Board determined the 
Schells had complied with the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 in 
making and filing their application and the Schells had no outlet to or 
connection with a convenient public road. 

 
 
[¶6]      The Board 
appointed three viewers and appraisers  Richard Grant, Joy Sorenson, and Brad 
Boner (collectively, "viewers").  
Mr. Grant and Mr. Boner met with both parties on the Closses' property to 
view the proposed easements on May 26, 2004.  Ms. Sorenson was unable to attend this 
viewing but returned on June 8, 2004, with Mr. Grant to review the proposed 
routes.  The Schells' route 
incorporated an existing two-track road that crossed the middle of the Closs 
property and continued through the Gronski property to the Schell boundary.  The alternative easement proposed by the 
Closses followed their southern boundary line and did not provide a connection 
to the Gronski easement.  After 
walking and marking out each proposed route, the viewers determined that the 
Schells' proposal was the most reasonable and convenient route.4

 
 
[¶7]      On June 14, 2004, 
the viewers submitted their report to the Board detailing their findings and 
assessing damages.  A final hearing 
was held on July 7, 2004, to address the report in accordance with Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 24-9-103(a) (LexisNexis 2003).  
At the hearing, the Closses objected to the report because it failed to 
include the value of their property before and after placement of the proposed 
road and the viewers did not file a plat with the report.  The Board overruled the 
objection.

 
 
[¶8]      The Board entered 
its Findings, Conclusions and Decision on the Report of Viewers and Appraisers 
on August 4, 2004.  The Board 
established the road requested by the Schells with the modification suggested by 
the viewers.  The Board also 
assessed damages for the taking of the Closses' property.  The Closses filed a petition for review 
in the district court.  The district 
court affirmed the Board's decision.  
This appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶9]      We review 
administrative decisions pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 
2005):

 
 
            
 (c) To the extent necessary 
to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all 
relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, 
and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In 
making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or 
those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of 
prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i) Compel agency action 
unlawfully withheld

or unreasonably delayed; 
and

            
(ii) 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;

     (B) 
Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;

    
     (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority 
or limitations or lacking statutory right;

     (D) 
Without observance of procedure required by law; or

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

 
 
[¶10]   In conducting our review, "we 
accord no special deference to the district court's conclusions."  Bailey v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
& Comp. Div., 2002 WY 145, ¶ 6, 55 P.3d 23, 25 (Wyo. 2002).  Rather, 

 
 
[w]e review the 
administrative order issued by the Board as if it had come directly to this 
[C]ourt from the Board. 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. "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a 
reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions."  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. 

Wagstaff v. Sublette 
County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2002 WY 123, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 79, 81 (Wyo. 2002) (internal citations omitted).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]   The Closses claim that several 
errors require vacating the order establishing the private road and the 
assessing of damages.  First, the 
Closses claim that the viewers erred by failing to determine the before and 
after values for their property and that the Board improperly disregarded the 
testimony of their expert appraiser.  
Second, the Closses contend that they were denied due process of law 
because one of the viewers was absent from the final hearing.  Third, the Closses assert that the 
viewers' report is invalid because it was based on the false assumption that any 
route had to connect with the Gronski easement.  Finally, the Closses contend the viewers 
erred by failing to file a plat concurrently with the final report.  

 
 

Assessment of 
Damages

 
 
[¶12]   The Closses dispute the amount of 
damages assessed for the taking of their property.  They contend that the viewers' final 
report is invalid because it failed to properly set out the "before and after" 
values of their property as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(j) for 
private road applications.  The 
Closses also contend that the Board inappropriately disregarded the testimony of 
their expert appraiser.

 
 
[¶13]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(j) 
provides:

 
 
            
In determining any damages to be suffered by the owner or owners of the 
lands through which the access shall be provided, the viewers and appraisers shall appraise 
the value of the property before and after the road is in place.  Damages also may include reasonable 
compensation for any improvements on the lands over which any private road is to 
be granted which were not paid for and will be used by the 
applicant.

 
 
(Emphasis added.)  We have previously indicated a 
preference for a before and after valuation to be separately stated by the 
viewers.  In Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69, ¶ 44, 28 P.3d 838, 853 (Wyo. 2001), we stated that "[i]n the interest of clarity, 
instructions to appraisers in these matters should provide direction to set out 
the before and after values of the impacted property as well as the factors 
affecting those values."  

 
 
[¶14]   In this case, the instructions 
given to the viewers provided:  

 
 
1.         
. . .

 
 
(c)        In 
determining any damages to be suffered by the owner or owners of the lands 
through which the access shall be provided, the viewers and appraisers shall 
appraise the value of the property before and after the road is in place.  Damages also may include reasonable 
compensation for any improvements on the lands over which any private road is to 
be granted which were not paid for and will be used by the 
applicant.

 
 
. . .  

 
 

5.                  
The lands requested are 
to be utilized only for the purpose of a private roadway.  You are to assess the damages sustained 
by the owners over which the road is to be established and to report that amount 
to the board of county commissioners.  
You are to do this faithfully and impartially and the amount of damages, 
if any, assessed is to be an amount which will reasonably and fairly compensate 
the owners for the damages which will be sustained by the establishment of the 
roadway.  You shall assess such 
damages.  It will be necessary to 
explain to the board of commissioners and the parties how you arrived at all 
figures.

 
 
In their final report, 
the viewers determined that the Schells owed the Closses $1,350.00 in 
damages.  They set forth their 
calculations as follows:

 
 
It is in 
our findings that a value cannot be established for the affected property.  This decision is based on the fact that 
with mountain property you have a range of $500.00 per acre to $1,500.00 per 
acre depending on the number of acres, location, improvements, water, etc.  The true market value is then determined 
when an actual sale is made.  We 
feel it is impossible to determine the actual affect this easement will have on 
the property values until all the land involved has been placed on the open 
market, including the property that this easement is being established 
for.

 
 
As for the direct and 
indirect damages incurred by the establishment of this easement, the following 
is our recommendation for compensation:

 
 
As per survey:            

2936.3 ft long x 20 ft 
wide = 58726 sq.ft.

            
58726 sq.ft.\ 43560 sq.ft./acre = 1.35 acres

                                    
1.35 acres @ $1000.00/acre = $1350.00

 
 
Although the before and 
after values were not separately stated in the final report, two of the viewers 
testified at the final hearing explaining their determination of damages.  As explained through Mr. Grant's 
testimony, the viewers found that mountain property in that area sold within a 
range of $500.00 per acre to $1,500.00 per acre.  The viewers took an average of those 
numbers and multiplied it by the acreage affected by the placement of the road 
to determine the amount of damages.  
The viewers then discounted that amount by twenty-five percent (25%) to 
account for the Closses' use of the road.

 
 
[¶15]   We have previously allowed the 
viewers to testify at the final hearing explaining their valuation rather than 
requiring the submission of an amended final report.  In R.C.R., Inc., v. Deline, 2003 WY 62, ¶ 
6, 70 P.3d 214, 216 (Wyo. 2003), the parties filed a petition for review with 
the district court claiming the viewers improperly assessed damages.  Upon remand, "the district court ordered 
that the Board either 1) have the viewers and appraisers resubmit a report 
explaining their determination of damages, upon which a subsequent due process 
hearing would be held, or 2) hold an additional due process hearing on the 
existing report of the viewers and appraisers whereupon the viewers and 
appraisers could explain their determination of damages and be subject to 
cross-examination."  Id., ¶ 6, 70 P.3d  at 216.  The Board chose the 
later option.  Id., ¶ 7, 70 P.3d  at 216.  At the second hearing, 
the viewers and appraisers testified that they applied the "before-after" 
analysis in assessing damages.  
Id., ¶ 27, 70 P.3d  at 221.  However, they felt 
that the property outside of the corridor would have been unaffected in dollar 
value before and after the road was established.  Id.  Upon our review, we found that the 
viewers and appraisers' testimony regarding their methodology in calculating 
damages was acceptable.  Id., ¶ 28, 70 P.3d  at 222.  We held that "the 
viewers and appraisers did consider appellant's property as a whole, but their 
conclusion was no damage would be caused to that property with the exception of 
damages sustained by the actual land taken for placement of the private 
road."  Id.  We concluded that the viewers and 
appraisers complied with the applicable law in making their assessment and that 
substantial evidence existed to support their conclusion.  Id.

 
 
[¶16]   In this case, Mr. Grant testified 
as to his understanding of the methodology for calculating damages.  He explained that "[y]ou find a dollar 
value of the property before the easement, and a dollar value after."  Mr. Boner agreed with Mr. Grant's 
explanation when asked by counsel.  
Mr. Grant further testified:  

 
 
            
As we sit down and look at this process we are faced with determining 
what the value of that property is the minute before an easement is established and a 
minute after the easement is 
established.  

 
 
. . . 

 
 
            
That's where we had a tough time determining the value before and 
after.  In the compensation that 
we've come up with, we have compensated for the amount of acreage that has been 
affected by the road.

 

(Emphasis added.)  Their testimony demonstrates that the 
viewers understood that damages were required to be calculated by a "before and 
after" valuation of the Closses' property, but that they concluded no damages 
were caused to the property except damages sustained by the actual land taken 
for the placement of the private road.

            

[¶17]   We have recognized 
that

 

[w]ith regard to the 
establishment of private roads, "the legislature intended the procedure under [§ 
24-9-101] to provide in a local forum a readily available, economically 
affordable, and time efficient method to obtain a means of access to property." 
Martens v. JohnsonCounty Board of Commissioners, 954 P.2d 375, 380 
(Wyo. 
1998).  It is our role, in reviewing 
private road decisions of county boards of commissioners, to further that 
legislative intent and leave intact county decisions based on the recommendation 
of local landowners, who were sworn to be fair and impartial, of the damage 
caused by the grant of a private road.  
This is particularly true in this case where the viewers did everything 
within reason to thoroughly investigate and evaluate the damages. 

 
 

Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. 
Bd. of CountyComm'rs (In re Corell Redi 
Mix, Inc.), 2002 WY 167, ¶ 15, 57 P.3d 1218, 1225 (Wyo. 2002).  "So 
long as it is clear from the record the [Board] fully compensated [the 
landowner] for the difference in values of his land before and after the taking, 
[its] action must be sustained."  See Mayland, ¶ 39, 28 P.3d  at 852.  

[¶18]   In this case, the viewers 
understood the assessment of damages required the determination of before and 
after values of the Closses' property.  
A majority of the viewers attended the final hearing and were examined by 
counsel concerning their valuation process.  Clearly "[i]t would serve no valid 
purpose to remand this matter and require the [viewers] to provide before and 
after' values which would simply reflect the value difference in the amount of 
the damages already determined."  Mayland, ¶ 43, 28 P.3d  at 853.  

 
 
[¶19]   We also do not find that the Board 
inappropriately disregarded the testimony of the Closses' expert appraiser.  After careful consideration of all of 
the evidence, the Board chose to give the viewers' testimony more weight and 
credence than the testimony of the Closses' expert.  The Board explained its 
reasoning:

 
 
The Viewers and 
Appraisers testified that they did follow the instructions given to them and 
determined that the value of the property before the easement was granted was 
one thousand dollars an acre.  They 
determined this by their long familiarity with the area and prior sales prices 
in the area of which they were aware.  
The total value of the 180 acres was found to be reduced in value 
afterwards by $1350.00.  Mr. 
Hilston, however, testified that he had found comparable land values north of 
Newcastle, Wyoming, around the Devils Tower Area, and one around the Fort 
Laramie, Wyoming, area, and after making adjustments, determined the acreage to 
be worth about $2100 an acre before the easement ($336,000 total) and $2000 less 
($334,000 total) if no easement was granted or if the easement was limited to 
the proposal of the land owner.  Mr. 
Hilston testified that the difference would be much greater (and the land worth 
less) in the after value if the parcel was split down the middle with a public 
road because the landowner would lose his future right to subdivide the acreage 
into smaller lots.

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
The Viewers and 
Appraisers walked over and observed the property, and have considerable 
knowledge and experience of land values in the area.  Mr. Hilston was using sales on land he 
has not seen and has had little or no experience in the area in question.  Mr. Hilston also appeared to be basing 
his opinion of a significant decrease in land values due to a "public" road down 
the center of the property, thereby hindering a future subdivision of the 
property.  The Commissioners believe 
no public road has been recommended and that they are not approving a public 
road.  The Commissioners also 
believe that no subdivision is now planned and that any possible future 
subdivision is speculative.

 
 
"We will not substitute 
our judgment for that of the agency when substantial evidence supports the 
decision."  Elk Horn Ranch, Inc., ¶ 13, 57 P.3d  at 
1224-1225.  The Board simply found 
Mr. Hilston's opinion less persuasive than that of the viewers, which was well 
within the Board's discretion.  
Id.   

 
 
[¶20]   Upon our review of the record, we 
find no error in the Board's acceptance of the viewers' assessment of 
damages.  The viewers concluded that 
the only damages caused to the property were damages sustained by the actual 
land taken for the placement of the private road.  The viewers applied their knowledge of 
the local conditions and common sense in making their determination.  R.C.R., Inc., ¶ 32, 70 P.3d  at 222.  The record makes it apparent that the 
viewers made the appropriate review utilizing the required "before-after" 
analysis to determine damages.  
Id.  The viewers complied with applicable law 
in making their assessment and substantial evidence exists to support that 
assessment.

 
 

Due Process 

 
 
[¶21]   The Closses claim that they were 
denied their right to due process because one viewer was absent from the July 7, 
2004, hearing.  Although two of the 
viewers testified at the hearing and were subject to cross-examination, the 
third viewer, Ms. Sorenson, was unable to attend.  The Closses contend that Ms. Sorenson 
was the only real estate professional consulted about recreational comparables 
and, as a result, only she could provide information concerning the comparables 
used in the viewers' calculation of damages.  The Closses claim that the testimony of 
the other viewers was insufficient because they could not produce copies of the 
recreational comparables.  Further, 
the other viewers admitted that Ms. Sorenson was the best source to answer any 
questions about the recreational comparables.

 
 
[¶22]   In Carney v. Board of County Comm'rs, 757 P.2d 556, 559 (Wyo. 1988), we recognized that landowners have a right to a due 
process hearing before the board in a proceeding to establish a private road 
because of the property rights that are involved.  See also Voss v. Albany County Comm'rs, 
2003 WY 94, ¶ 23, 74 P.3d 714, 721 (Wyo. 2003) ("the parties to a private road 
action are afforded due process by their right to a contested case hearing 
before the Board").  Here, the 
Closses were afforded a due process hearing before the Board enabling them to 
lodge their objections concerning the final report submitted by the 
viewers.  Although Ms. Sorenson was 
not present to testify, neither the statutes nor case law require the presence 
of all the viewers at the hearing.  
See R.C.R., Inc., ¶ 33-35, 70 P.3d  at 222-223 (finding no due process violation occurred despite absence of 
one viewer and appraiser).  See also Wagstaff, ¶ 29, 53 P.3d  at 86 
(testimony was elicited from only two of the viewers and appraisers).  Two of the viewers were present to 
testify and were extensively cross-examined by the Closses.  Nothing prevented the Closses from 
subpoenaing Ms. Sorenson or requiring the other viewers to produce copies of the 
comparables used.  We find no 
violation of the Closses' right to due process.

 
 

Consideration of 
Alternate Routes

 
 
[¶23]   For this claim of error, the 
Closses contend that the viewers' final report should be nullified because the 
viewers were under the false impression that the chosen route had to connect to 
the Gronski easement.  In making 
this contention, the Closses recognize that an applicant has the right to 
propose alternate locations for a road pursuant to Dunning v. Ankney, 936 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 
1997).  However, the Closses assert 
that our holding in Voss prohibits 
the applicant from limiting the Board to consideration of only one roadway.   Specifically, the Closses claim that the 
viewers' understanding that any chosen route had to connect to the Gronski 
easement "infected the private road process."  They believe "[i]t preordained the 
choice of [the Schells'] proposed road as the chosen route, in derogation of the 
express prohibitions and spirit of Voss."

 
 
[¶24]   We disagree.  The viewers' report reveals that each 
proposed route was given appropriate consideration.  The report explains that the viewers 
walked and marked out each route.  
Upon doing so, they discovered the Schells' proposal used an existing 
two-track road that had been utilized to access the property since 1985.  The two-track road connected directly to 
the easement granted by Mr. Gronski and led to a public road.  In contrast, the alternate route 
proposed by the Closses was not an existing roadway and required significant 
cost to build.  The proposed 
alternate route ran along the southern boundary of the Closses' property and it 
neither connected to the Gronski easement nor to a public roadway.  That portion of the Closses' property 
contained a sharp incline and soft areas, or "bogs."  Establishing a road along this route 
would also require the road to cross a creek and the removal of many trees.  After considering each route, the 
viewers concluded that the Schells' proposal was more convenient and 
reasonable.  

 
 
[¶25]   At the July 7, 2004, hearing, the 
Board received evidence concerning each proposed route.  The Board agreed with the viewers that 
the Schells' proposal was more reasonable and convenient.  The Board found that the expense and 
physical obstacles in the Closses' proposed route made it impractical except 
under the most desperate of circumstances.  
The Board also expressly stated that its decision was not premised on the 
fact that the Closses' proposed route did not connect with the Gronski 
easement.  

 
 
[¶26]   We have held that "convenience and 
reason should prevail in the establishment of roads, which was, in our view, 
what the legislature intended when it enacted the private road statute."  Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 462 (Wyo. 1995).  The county commissioners are bound to 
approve only such means of access to landlocked property as are reasonable.  Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. Murray, 811 P.2d 287, 291 (Wyo. 1991).  The Schells' sole purpose for filing a 
petition to establish a private road was to ensure access to their 
property.  A proposed route that 
requires the building of an entirely new road that does not connect to any other 
existing roadway or easement is neither convenient nor reasonable.  See Mayland, ¶ 22, 28 P.3d  at 847 
(holding that "the CountyCommissioners were under no compulsion to 
seriously consider the suggestion that an entirely new road be built when two 
routes already exist").    Accordingly, we find no 
error.

 
 

Filing of the 
Plat

 
 
[¶27]   The Closses claim that damages were 
incorrectly assessed because the viewers failed to file a plat concurrently with 
their final report as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(h).5  They acknowledge that a survey was 
submitted to the Board with the application for a private road.  However, they claim that because the 
viewers had to correct a portion of the road that crossed the property of an 
unnoticed third party, the measurements of the road were inaccurate.  They contend that these inaccurate 
measurements led to an incorrect assessment of damages.

 
 
[¶28]   The Schells counter that no error 
occurred by failing to file a plat concurrently with the final report.  The Schells claim that the purpose of 
the plat is to apprise the parties of the location of the road selected by the 
viewers.  Here, both a survey and a 
topographical map were submitted with the petition.  All parties were aware of the location 
of the road selected by the viewers.  
The Schells claim that although a plat was not filed concurrently with 
the report, a plat was eventually filed as ordered by the Board.  The Schells further contend that the 
Closses suffered no damages because the measurements of the road were the same 
in both the survey and in the final plat.

 
 
[¶29]   In Carney, the Board accepted the viewers 
and appraisers' amended report and ordered the applicant to survey and prepare a 
plat of the designated road.  Carney, 757 P.2d  at 558.  The plat of the road was completed in 
February of 1986, and it was presented to the Board at its meeting on July 1, 
1986.  Id.  Upon determining that the applicant had 
paid the required costs and damages and that the plat had been completed as 
ordered, the Board declared the Carney route to be a private road and ordered 
that the plat be filed with the county clerk.  Id.  We approved of this practice without 
comment.

[¶30]   In this case, the Board accepted 
the viewers' report and ordered the Schells to file a certificate of survey 
within twelve months.  The Board 
further required that the assessment of damages be paid upon completion of the 
survey.  This procedure is similar 
to that utilized in Carney.  In addition, the measurements of the 
road upon the filing of the final plat were the same as the survey filed with 
the petition for a private road.  
Even if the measurements had been different, the method used to assess 
damages in this case could easily have been applied to correct any 
discrepancies.  As a result, any 
alleged irregularity was de 
minimis.  See Voss, ¶ 19, 74 P.3d  at 720 (finding 
any alleged irregularity was de 
minimis and that the Board substantially complied with the procedural 
requirements of the statute).

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶31]   We find that the Board's decision 
was supported by substantial evidence.  
The viewers did not err in their assessment of damages and the Board did 
not inappropriately disregard Mr. Hilston's testimony.  The Closses' due process rights were not 
violated.  We further find that the 
Board and viewers gave appropriate consideration to each of the proposed routes 
for placement of the road.  Finally, 
we find no prejudicial error to the Closses as a result of the late filing of 
the plat.  

 
 
[¶32]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Prior to 
August 1985, the parcels owned by the Schells, the Closses and Mr. Gronski were 
owned as one parcel by Mr. Olson.  
After Mr. Olson sold the Schells their parcel, but before the other 
parcels were sold to the Closses and Mr. Gronksi, the Schells accessed their 
property via the two-track road.

 
 

2Although the 
contract for the purchase of the property from Mr. Olson contained language 
purporting to give a permanent right-of-way easement over the road, later 
conveyances did not properly reserve the right-of-way.  

 
 

3The 
application was filed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(LexisNexis 2003) 
which provides in part:

  

(a) Any 
person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may file 
an application in writing with the board of county commissioners in the county 
where his land is located for a private road leading from his land to some 
convenient public road. The application shall contain the following 
information:

            
(i) The legal description of the land owned by the applicant to which 
access is sought and a statement that the land is located within the 
county;

  
          
(ii) A specific statement as to why the land has no legally enforceable 
access, other than a waterway, and whether the land is surrounded on all sides 
by land owned by another person or persons or a natural or man-made barrier 
making access unreasonably costly;

  
          
(iii) A description of the applicant's efforts to purchase a legally 
enforceable access to a public road;

            
(iv) A description sufficient to identify the general location of any 
access routes proposed by the applicant;

 
 
            
(v) The legal description and the names and addresses of the affected 
parties of all land over which any proposed access routes would cross. Affected 
parties includes the owners of record, owners of recorded easements and rights 
of way and any lessee, mortgagee or occupant of the land over which any proposed 
road would cross and may include the state of Wyoming; 
and

            (vi) 
A statement as to whether any actions of the applicant or any person with the 
consent and knowledge of the applicant, caused the applicant's land to lose or 
to not have any legally enforceable access.(b) Within ten (10) days after filing 
an application with the board, the applicant shall give notice in writing by 
certified mail, with return receipt, to the affected parties of all lands over 
which any private road is applied for, of his pending application for a private 
road. The notice shall include a complete copy of the original application and 
any amendments thereto.

(c) The 
board shall review the application within thirty (30) days of its receipt and if 
the board finds the application contains the information required by subsection 
(a) of this section and notice has been provided in accordance with subsection 
(b) of this section, it shall schedule a hearing to determine whether the 
applicant has no legally enforceable access to his land. The hearing shall be 
scheduled at a date that allows the applicant time to give all notice required 
under this section.(d) If the applicant has had access to his land and that 
access is being denied or restricted, the board of county commissioners may 
grant temporary access to the applicant over a route identified by the board 
until the application has been processed and 
finalized.

(e) After 
the board has scheduled a hearing date under subsection (c) of this section, the 
applicant shall give written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing 
on the application, by certified mail with return receipt, to all affected 
parties named in the original application and any other landowners the board 
believes may be affected by the application or any alternative route which may 
be considered by the board or the viewers and appraisers. The written notice 
shall include a copy of the original application and any amendments thereto and 
shall be provided at least sixty (60) days prior to the pending hearing. If any 
affected party 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 first publication 
shall be at least sixty (60) days prior to the 
hearing.

(f) The 
board may assess to the applicant costs for acting on the application under this 
section and W.S. 24-9-103 and require the applicant to file a bond to pay for 
those costs.

(g) All 
affected parties having an interest in the lands through which the proposed road 
or any alternative road may pass may appear at the hearing and be heard by the 
board as to the necessity of the road and all matters pertaining 
thereto.

(h) If at 
the completion of the hearing the board finds that the applicant has satisfied 
the requirements of this section and access is necessary because the applicant 
has no legally enforceable access, the board shall appoint three (3) 
disinterested freeholders and electors of the county, as viewers and appraisers. 
. . . 

 
 

4The viewers 
made a slight modification to the Schells proposed route at the entrance of the 
Closses property to avoid encroaching upon the property of a third party who had 
not been provided notice of the proceeding.

 
 

5Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(h) 
(LexisNexis 2003) provides in pertinent part:

 
 
. . . The 
viewers and appraisers shall also appraise any 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. . . .