Title: BENDER v. GREER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BENDER v. GREER2000 WY 18996 P.2d 671Case Number: 98-325Decided: 02/15/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
DONALD E. BENDER, 
Appellant (Plaintiff), v.MICHAEL GREER, Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from the District 
Court of Uinta County, Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge.

Donald E. 
Bender, pro se, representing appellant.William P. Schwartz of Ranck, 
Schwartz & Day, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming, representing 
appellee.

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

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1] Appellant 
Donald E. Bender brought this appeal contending that a hearing officer's 
decision to serve in that capacity is a final and appealable agency decision. 
The district court dismissed his petition for review for failure to exhaust 
administrative remedies.

[¶2] We affirm. 

ISSUES

[¶3] Bender 
presents the issues as:

I. Whether the Uinta 
County and Prosecuting Attorney is an agency as defined by W.S. § 16-3-101(b)(i) 
with the authority to change the properly promulgated rules of practice and 
procedures governing appeals before the Uinta County Board of 
Equalization?

II. Whether the Uinta 
County and Prosecuting Attorney is not in compliance with the rules of practice 
and procedures governing appeals before the Uinta County Board of Equalization 
when he serves as the hearing officer?

III. Whether the Uinta 
County and Prosecuting Attorney can provide legal advice pursuant to W.S. § 
18-3-302(a)(ii), or perform other duties pursuant to W.S. § 18-3-302(a) (iv), 
while he is serving as the hearing officer for the Uinta County Board of 
Equalization?

IV. Whether W.S. § 
33-5-101 through 33-5-117, or the rules of professional conduct for attorneys at 
law, provide the authority for the Uinta County and Prosecuting Attorney's 
conduct at the November 19, 1997 hearing of the Uinta County Board of 
Equalization?

[¶4] Appellee 
Michael Greer states the issues as:

1. Did the district court 
abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's petition for review because of 
appellant's failure to exhaust his administrative 
remedies?

2. Has Appellant's appeal 
been rendered moot because appellee is no longer the Uinta County 
Attorney?

FACTS

[¶5] Bender 
appealed the 1997 property tax assessment on his home to the Uinta County Board 
of Equalization (Board). For the hearing, the Board utilized the services of the 
county attorney, Greer, as the administrative hearing officer. Bender contends 
that Greer acted as both legal advisor and hearing officer to the Board, and he 
characterizes this as a conflict. He filed motions for Greer to recuse himself 
and for a continuance to seek judicial review of the Board's decision to permit 
the county attorney to act as a hearing officer. When it appeared that Greer 
would continue to act as the hearing officer, Bender filed a petition for review 
on December 19, 1997, against Greer personally, before a final decision of the 
Board issued.

[¶6] 
Specifically, the petition for review contended that Greer violated applicable 
agency rules and procedures when he acted as the hearing officer before the 
Uinta County Board of Equalization, claiming that the Board's rules mandate that 
"[t]he Chairman of the Board shall conduct the hearing." Bender claimed that 
Greer advised the Board to deny his motions for Greer to recuse himself and for 
a continuance to seek judicial review of Greer's interpretation of the rules. In 
the petition for review, Bender requested that the court "review the conduct of 
Mr. Greer as the Attorney to the Uinta County Board of Equalization in light of 
the RULES, and provide for the correction of the errors complained of, and that 
an authenticated transcript of the record, proceedings, and papers in the 
proceeding be filed with this court." He further requested "any additional 
relief that the Court deems just and proper to mitigate the November 19, 1997 
errors, and eliminate future procedural problems in this ongoing two and 
one-half year old assessment valuation protest before the Uinta County Board of 
Equalization."

[¶7] Greer, then 
representing himself, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for 
which relief could be granted because Bender had filed the action against him 
personally and because the Board had not issued a final action from which Bender 
could properly appeal. The district court determined that Bender was not 
entitled to judicial relief until the required administrative remedies had been 
exhausted and a final agency decision issued. The district court dismissed 
Bender's petition for review, and this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶8] On appeal, 
Bender contends that a county attorney is an "agency" as defined in Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 16-3-101(b)(i), and his conduct is subject to judicial review. He further 
contends that any further pursuit of an administrative remedy would be futile. 
Greer asserts that the agency action required to exhaust administrative remedies 
must be a final decision from the Board, and, without that final action, the 
district court's dismissal should be affirmed.

[¶9] "The 
election of a court to decline jurisdiction on the basis of non-exhaustion of 
administrative remedies is vested in the sound exercise of its discretion." 
Routh v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 952 P.2d 1108, 1115 
(Wyo. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 49 (1998).

[¶10] The 
exhaustion doctrine applies where an agency alone has been granted or found to 
possess exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The purpose of the doctrine then 
is to avoid premature interruption of the administrative process where the 
agency has been created to apply a statute in the first 
instance.

Id. "In Wyoming, judicial 
action is withheld until the administrative process has run its course." Id. 
(citing Wagoner v. State, Dep't of Admin. and Information, 924 P.2d 88, 91 (Wyo. 
1996)).

[¶11] In this 
case, Bender protested his property tax assessment in accordance with Wyoming 
statute.1 The Uinta County Board of 
Equalization is granted and possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and 
it is improper to bring a petition for review personally against Greer. In 
handling Bender's protest, the Board decided to utilize the services of the 
county attorney. Bender protested this decision to the Board, claiming that it 
violated the Board's rules and claiming that Greer should be disqualified for 
bias. Generally, a claim that an agency's rules are invalid or are improperly 
construed may be the subject of a declaratory judgment action while pursuing 
agency proceedings. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County v. Dep't of Rev. and Tax. 
of State of Wyo., 770 P.2d 223, 225 (Wyo. 1989); Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas 
Ass'n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163, 1167-68 (Wyo. 1982); State v. Kraus, 706 P.2d 1130, 1133 (Wyo. 1985). Bender did not pursue a declaratory judgment action 
against the Board. He instead chose to improperly proceed against Greer, and we 
affirm the district court's decision to dismiss his petition for 
review.

Footnotes

1 At the time that Bender 
filed his tax protest, June 3, 1997, the statute in effect was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
39-2-302. In 1998, that statute was repealed and replaced by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
39-13-102, which states in relevant part:

(c) The board of county 
commissioners of each county constitutes the county board of equalization. The 
county board shall meet at the office of the county commissioners at such times 
as necessary. . . .The county board of equalization shall:

* * 
*

(iv) Hear and determine 
the complaint of any person relative to any property assessment or value as 
returned by the county assessor subject to W.S. 39-13-109(b)(i)[.]