Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CROELL REDI MIX, INC. FOR A PRIVATE ROAD

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CROELL REDI MIX, INC. FOR A PRIVATE ROAD2002 WY 16757 P.3d 1218Case Number: 01-260Decided: 11/18/2002
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                
    

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

OF 
CROELL REDI MIX, INC. FOR A

PRIVATE 
ROAD:

 

ELK 
HORN RANCH, INC.; ROBERTA I.

HUTCHINSON 
REVOCABLE TRUST

DATED 
APRIL 1, 1977; and CRAGO

RANCH 
TRUST,

 

Appellants(Petitioners),

                                                                                    

v.

 

BOARD 
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

CROOK 
COUNTY, WYOMING,

                                                                                    

Appellee(Respondent),

 

and

 

CROELL 
REDI MIX, INC.,

 

Appellee(Applicant).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Crook County

The 
Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellants:

            
Stanley S. Sheehan, Newcastle, Wyoming  

 

Representing 
Appellee Board of County Commissioners:

            
No appearance

Representing 
Appellee Croell Redi Mix, Inc.:

            
Mark L. Hughes of Hughes Law Office, Sundance, Wyoming  

 

 

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

 

*Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument

 

            
KITE, Justice.

 

[¶1]      The Board of 
County Commissioners of Crook County (the board) established a private road over 
certain landowners' property.  Those 
landowners dispute the damages awarded to them for the private road and contend 
the board erred in ordering that cattle guards be installed.  We find the board's decision is 
supported by substantial evidence and affirm.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      We summarize the 
issues as follows:1

 

I.  Is 
the private road order issued by the board supported by substantial 
evidence?

 

II.  Did the board properly determine, as 
recommended by the viewers and appraisers, that car gates2 could be 
installed?

 

III.  Did the board properly approve the 
survey?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (LEXIS 1999) (amended 2000), Croell Redi Mix, Inc. (Redi 
Mix) filed an application with the board requesting the establishment of a 
private road across property owned by the Roberta I. Hutchinson Revocable Trust 
(Hutchison), Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. (Elk Horn), and the Crago Ranch Trust (Crago) 
(collectively the landowners) in order to access and haul gravel from its 
landlocked property. A road already existed from the public highway to the 
gravel pit, and Elk Horn had paid Hutchinson $5,000 for an easement over 
Hutchinson's property giving Elk Horn access to its property.  However, Crago had no legal right of 
access over either Elk Horn's property or Hutchinson's property.  The parties stipulated that the private 
road would be located on the existing road on Hutchinson's property which 
provided access to Elk Horn's and Crago's properties.  Redi Mix agreed to construct a new 
roadway over Elk Horn's and Crago's properties.  The parties also stipulated that the law 
prior to 2000 would control because Redi Mix sent the initial notices of intent 
to apply for the private road before the 2000 amendment to § 24-9-101 became 
effective. 

 

[¶4]      The board held a 
hearing on the issue of damages. Representing the interests of Hutchinson, Drew 
Hutchinson provided his lay opinion the private road would reduce the value of 
Hutchinson's property by $204,000 on the basis of his personal knowledge of 
sales in the area, fencing costs would be in excess of $20,000, and a 
twenty-five percent reduction in the value of the remaining property would 
result from the haul road which was consistent with the report by the appraiser 
for Crago's and Elk Horn's properties.  
He also gave his own opinion as to loss due to inconvenience and the 
impact the road would have on his family's way of life.  Elk Horn and Crago provided an 
appraiser, Jerry Hulm, who testified the per acre value of the land taken by the 
actual roadway was $1,000 for Elk Horn's property and $800 for Crago's 
property.  In addition, Mr. Hulm 
testified the proposed road would diminish the value of the remaining properties 
and the total damages to Elk Horn's property would be $316,000 and to Crago's 
property would be $171,000. Mr. Hulm's opinion was supported by his appraisal 
report which contained a complicated formula that attempted to estimate the 
impact on the properties based upon proximity to the road and limitations on 
future development.

 

[¶5]      Three viewers and 
appraisers (the viewers), appointed by the board as required by § 24-9-101, 
testified the only damage would be the taking of the actual acreage consumed by 
the roadway.  The viewers adopted 
$1,000 per acre as the value for Hutchinson's property and Elk Horn's property 
resulting in damages of $4,200 and $3,650 respectively and $800 per acre as the 
value for Crago's property resulting in damages of $3,240.3  They also recommended the installation 
of three cattle guards between the properties to minimize livestock wandering 
and preclude the necessity to open and shut gates.4

 

[¶6]      The board issued 
an order adopting the viewers' conclusions and establishing a private road 
contingent upon approval of the survey and Redi Mix's payment of the damages and 
costs.  The landowners filed a 
petition for administrative review, and the district court affirmed the board's 
decision.  This appeal 
followed.

 

 

            

[¶7]      In Hoff v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety 
and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 129, 
53 P.3d 107 (Wyo. 2002), we reiterated the administrative agency action 
standard of review clarified in Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 
2002).5

 

Judicial 
review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114.

 

            
In appeals where both parties submit evidence 
at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be 
limited to application of the substantial evidence test.  This is true regardless of which 
party appeals from the agency decision.  
In addition, this court is required to review the entire record in making 
its ultimate determination on appeal.

 

            
The substantial evidence test to be applied is as follows:  "In reviewing findings of fact, we 
examine the entire record to determine whether 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 mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions.  It is more 
than a scintilla of evidence."  
Newman, at ¶12.

 

Even 
when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial 
evidence test, . . . this court may be required to apply the 
arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action 
which prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or 
which might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards.  
[Newman provides a] purely demonstrative 
listing . . . of situations which could warrant the 
consideration of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard in addition to the 
substantial evidence test.  
However, this appeal presents no such unique circumstances.  

 

Hoff, 
2002 WY 129, ¶¶5-8 (footnotes and some citations omitted).  This private road appeal presents no 
unique circumstances; therefore, we apply only the substantial evidence 
analysis.

  

[¶8]      The landowners 
also raise questions of law concerning the board's authority to require the 
cattle guards.  We affirm an 
administrative agency's conclusions of law only if they are in accord with the 
law.  We do not afford deference to 
the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in 
either interpreting or applying the law.  
Yenne-Tully v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division, 2002 WY 90, ¶7, 48 P.3d 1057, ¶7 (Wyo. 2002); Wesaw v. Quality 
Maintenance, 2001 WY 17, ¶8, 19 P.3d 500, ¶8 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

A.        
Substantial Evidence

 

[¶9]      Before the 2000 
amendment, § 24-9-1016 provided in relevant part that, 
when the board finds an applicant has complied with the law and the private road 
is necessary, it shall appoint three disinterested freeholders and electors of 
the county as viewers and appraisers and direct them to meet on, view, and 
locate the proposed private road and assess damages. The statute further 
required the viewers to submit a plat of the road to the board at the same time 
they assessed the landowners' damages.  
Under this version of § 24-9-101,7 damages were

 

assessed 
in accordance with Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 463 (Wyo. 1995).  That is, the viewers and appraisers 
must: first, determine the value of the property over which the road crosses 
before the private road is established; second, determine the value of the 
property over which the road crosses after the private road is established; and 
third, subtract the "after" value from the "before" value, which equals the 
damages due the owners of land over which the road crosses.  In applying this formula, the viewers 
and appraisers are to determine the "before" and "after" value only of those 
lands over which the private road crosses; not . . . the "before" and 
"after" value of all surrounding lands affected by the proposed 
road.

 

Miller 
v. Bradley, 
4 P.3d 882, 888-89 (Wyo. 2000); see also Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69, 
¶35, 28 P.3d 838, ¶35 (Wyo. 2001).

 

[¶10]   The viewers received written 
instructions explaining how to assess the damages which were consistent with the 
"before and after test."  How and by 
whom these instructions were drafted and provided to the viewers is not 
clear.  It appears from the record 
the board may have provided them to the viewers on the day of their on-site 
property inspection.  The landowners 
did not object to these instructions.  
They did, however, move to strike the viewers' recommendation report 
because it failed to provide the reasons for the recommendations.  The hearing examiner denied the motion 
ruling Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-103 (LEXIS 1999) (amended 2000)8 required the viewers to file a 
written recommendation report but did not direct the reasons for the 
recommendations be included.  

 

[¶11]   The viewers testified they 
inspected the landowners' properties and the gravel pit and traveled the 
proposed road.  They determined the 
dust and noise caused by haul vehicles would not impact any of the landowners' 
buildings because none existed along the proposed or existing roadway.  They contacted South Dakota and Wyoming 
county clerks, assessors, and real estate professionals in an effort to identify 
sales of comparable properties where private roads had been established.  When they investigated similar 
situations, they found no evidence the remaining lands either increased or 
decreased in value after establishment of the private roads.  They reviewed Mr. Hulm's appraisals of 
Crago's and Elk Horn's properties and Mr. Hutchinson's estimate of damage to 
Hutchinson's property.  The viewers 
adopted Mr. Hulm's per acre values for the properties before the establishment 
of the private road concluding those values were based on comparable sales.  However, they rejected Mr. Hulm's 
opinion of the diminution in value of the remaining properties that would be 
caused by the private road because they could not find any circumstance where a 
private road caused a diminution in the value of the affected property other 
than from the taking of the actual roadway itself.  They also concluded the current highest 
and best use of the property was as agricultural land and refused to consider 
Mr. Hulm's opinion that the road would limit future development of secluded, 
executive home sites.  None of the 
landowners had made proposals for subdividing their properties for such 
use.

 

[¶12]   After extensive cross-examination 
of the viewers, the landowners presented their  evidence of damages which included Mr. 
Hulm's testimony regarding the Crago and Elk Horn appraisals.  Mr. Hulm testified he applied several 
adjustments to the comparable sales he identified in order to account for the 
increase in value caused by providing legal access where none had existed (e.g., 
Crago's property) and to estimate the diminution in value to the remaining 
properties considering market resistance to properties with private haul roads 
through them.  His report provided a 
complex theory which resulted in differing values for different parcels 
depending on their proximity to the road and the effect on future development 
potential as well as estimating the cost of alterations that could be required 
to maintain an efficient agricultural operation.  However, he was unable to identify 
actual comparable property sales for which the value was diminished because a 
private road was located on the land.  
He also acknowledged he had never performed a private road appraisal 
under § 24-9-101 prior to completing the Crago and Elk Horn appraisals.  

 

[¶13]   After presentation of all the 
evidence, the board had to determine which evidence was most persuasivethe 
landowners who claimed, in addition to the lands taken by the roadway itself, 
the value of their remaining properties would be substantially diminished or the 
viewers who concluded the only damage was the per acre value of the lands taken 
for the roadway.  The board 
carefully considered all the evidence and chose to give the viewers' testimony 
more weight and credence than the appraiser's testimony. The board's order 
provides numerous detailed findings which, for the most part, set out a thorough 
and accurate summary of the evidence.  
We will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency when 
substantial evidence supports the decision.  Newman, 2002 WY 91, 
¶12.

 

[¶14]   We hold the board's finding that 
the appraiser, Mr. Hulm, did not use comparable sales or the sales comparison 
method to be unsupported by the evidence.  
Mr. Hulm's testimony and the two appraisal reports demonstrate he did use 
comparable sales but also applied adjustments.  The application of adjustments is a 
standard real estate appraisal practice, and no evidence was submitted to 
indicate these particular adjustments were invalid or violated the Uniform 
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-39-107 (LexisNexis 
2001);9 see The Appraisal of Real 
Estate ch. 17 (10th ed. 1992).  However, this error does not alter our 
conclusion that substantial evidence supported the board's decision regarding 
appropriate damages.  The board 
simply found the appraiser's opinion less persuasive than that of the viewers 
which was well within the board's discretion.

 

[¶15]   With 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. Johnson County 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.10  This is particularly true in this case 
where the viewers did everything within reason to thoroughly investigate and 
evaluate the damages.  

 

[¶16]   We will not capitulate to the 
landowners' efforts to relitigate their case on appeal.  "Our task is not to reweigh the 
evidence."  Leavitt v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 980 P.2d 332, 335 
(Wyo. 1999). We conclude substantial evidence supported the findings and, 
therefore, affirm. 

 

 

[¶17]   The landowners argue there was no 
instruction given to the viewers to establish cattle guards and the statute did 
not provide such authority.  The 
damages instructions stated, in relevant part and consistent with Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 24-9-102 (LEXIS 1999) (repealed 2000), "The viewers and appraisers shall 
have power to determine in all cases whether or not gates shall be placed at the 
proper points on said road, and assess damages in accordance with such 
determination."  As noted 
previously, the record does not indicate the landowners objected to these 
damages instructions being given to the viewers.  The viewers testified they followed the 
instructions and thought cattle guards would better serve all parties' interests 
than conventional gates would. 

 

[¶18]   The landowners' objection to this 
requirement is somewhat obtuse.  
They appear to contend only a manually operated gate could be required 
and the board's action ordering placement of cattle guards exceeded its 
statutory authority.  We reject this 
contention on the basis of our holdings in Van Raden v. Harper, 891 P.2d 78 (Wyo. 1995), and Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495 (Wyo. 1997).  In Van Raden, we held as a matter 
of law that installing cattle guards on a right-of-way easement is a permissible 
improvement of an easement and does not materially increase the burden of the 
servient estate.  891 P.2d  at 
79.  In Weiss, we recognized 
Van Raden and applied the principle to an alleged prescriptive 
right-of-way or access easement.  
933 P.2d  at 500.  The purpose 
of the private road is to provide the landlocked owner with reasonably 
convenient access to his property without imposing an inordinate burden on the 
servient property owner.  See 
Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. Murray, 811 P.2d 287, 290 (Wyo. 1991).  Cattle guards create no more, and likely 
create less, of a burden than gates do on the servient landowners.  We conclude the board did not err by 
adopting the viewers' recommendation.

 

 

[¶19]   The landowners argue the board 
should not have approved the survey map as presented because it did not place 
the private road on Hutchinson's property at the same location as the prior 
existing road easement.  This issue 
is fully resolved by the parties' stipulation to the location which the viewers 
relied on at the parties' request.  
The problem apparently arises because the preexisting road on 
Hutchinson's property was not located, as everyone had mistakenly believed, on 
the recorded easement.  The attorney 
for Redi Mix summarized the agreement for the hearing examiner and the board in 
precise language:

 

[T]he 
landowners involved, namely Roberta Hutchinson Trust, the Fortak family through 
their corporation [Elk Horn], and the Crago Ranch Trust 
. . . , have agreed to a road location that, I believe, is 
contained in the return by the viewers . . . . It is an alternate 
location, a location other than the existing roadway in so far as the 
. . . Elk [Horn] Ranch is concerned and the Crago Ranch Trust is 
concerned.  It is the existing 
roadway, as the existing roadway passes through the Roberta Hutchinson Trust 
property.  And I would 
stipulate that we have all agreed to  
the alternate location, the alternate route.  We are not now requesting a route along 
the existing roadway with the exception of the roadway as it passes through the 
Roberta Hutchinson Trust, which is the existing roadway.  

 

(Emphasis 
added.) The landowners' attorney responded by stating, "[t]he only thing I would 
add," and then he made some comments about the new routes contemplated for Elk 
Horn's and Crago's properties.  He 
said nothing to alter, or question, the representations made regarding the 
stipulation to the location of the road on Hutchinson's property.  The counsel's representations 
demonstrate all the parties negotiated and accepted the 
stipulation.

 

Stipulations 
are favored by courts.  Beard v. 
Beard, 368 P.2d 953, 955 (Wyo. 1962); 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 2 
(1953).  See Bard Ranch, Inc. v. 
Weber, 538 P.2d 24, 31 (Wyo. 1975) (citations omitted) stating that "[t]he 
parties are bound by the stipulation of facts just as they are bound by 
admissions in pleadings."  

 

Cummins 
v. Albany County Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc., 
821 P.2d 1296, 1297 (Wyo. 1991).  
The landowners did not contend the stipulation was misstated and had a 
full opportunity to provide any clarification they deemed necessary.  Yet they attempt in this appeal to 
suggest Hutchinson's property will incur additional damages because the board 
acted on their stipulation and approved the survey.  We hold the stipulation was valid and 
the board properly relied upon it in approving the survey.  

 

[¶20]   Affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

1The 
appellants set out the issues in their brief as follows: 

 

ISSUE 
ONE

 

Did 
the Board of Crook County Commissioners act contrary to law in stating that 
cattleguards could be installed?

 

ISSUE 
TWO

 

Should 
the finding of facts 7, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21 and 29 be struck since they are not 
supported by substantial evidence?

 

ISSUE 
THREE

 

Are 
the finding of facts and conclusions of law in the order establishing a private 
road contingent upon approval of survey and payment of damages and costs 
supported by substantial evidence?

 

ISSUE 
FOUR

 

Was 
the survey properly approved by the Board of Crook County 
Commissioners?

 

Appellee 
Croell Redi Mix, Inc. framed the issue in a much more general 
manner:

 

[W]hether 
the Crook County Commissioner[s'] Order titled Order Establishing a Private Road 
Contingent Upon Approval of Survey and Payment of Damages and Costs issued on 
November 14, 2000 is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with 
Wyoming law.

 

2Car gates are also known in common vernacular as cattle 
guards.

 

3The viewers also recommended damages for timber and shrubbery of $750 to 
Elk Horn and $1,000 to Crago which are included in the total damage figures but 
are not at issue in this appeal.

 

4These cattle guards would apparently be in addition to three cattle 
guards already in place on the properties.

 

5

(b) As used in this act:

 

(i) "Agency" means any authority, bureau, board, commission, department, 
division, officer or employee of the state, a county, city or town or other 
political subdivision of the state, except the governing body of a city or town, 
the state legislature, the University of Wyoming and the 
judiciary[.]

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-101(b)(i) (LexisNexis 2001). 

6

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.

 

7During the 2000 legislative session, the legislature added the before and 
after test:

 

            
(j) 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.  

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101(j) (LexisNexis 2001); see also 
Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69, ¶36, 28 P.3d 838, ¶36 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

8

            
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.  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.

            

9

Each certified real estate appraiser issued a permit to practice under 
this act shall comply with the standards of professional appraisal practice and 
ethical rules specified by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
Practice.

 

10We have held, "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, 4 P.3d  at 887.  
Nor will we force a landlocked property owner to choose a wholly 
illogical, uneconomical, and unproductive road.  Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. Murray, 
811 P.2d 287, 290 (Wyo. 1991).  
Further, and most recently in Mayland, 2001 WY 69, ¶26, we refused 
to require the proponent to go to extraordinary effort, such as a quiet title 
action, to prove other access may have been available over public 
lands.