Title: Doenz v. Sheridan County Bd. of County Com'rs

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Doenz v. Sheridan County Bd. of County Com'rs1997 WY 146949 P.2d 464Case Number: 97-73Decided: 12/17/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

WILLIAM DOENZ,  

Appellant (Plaintiff), 

 

v. 

 

SHERIDAN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

Sheridan County, Wyoming,  

Appellee (Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sheridan County

 The 
Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

 

 

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Frank C. 
Richter of Richter, Torkelson & Hanson, Billings, MT; and Karen Budd Falen 
of Budd Falen Law Offices, Cheyenne.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

Thomas 
Klepperich of Lonabaugh and Riggs, Sheridan.

 

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

MACY, Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant William 
Doenz appeals from the order which denied his motion to file a second amended 
complaint.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Doenz presents 
the following issues for our review:

 

I.

Whether the Second Amended Complaint should be 
denied, and Civil Action No. C 91-3-96 be dismissed by Summary Judgment or by 
the District Court's last Order?

 

II.

Whether Sheridan County Board of County 
Commissioners, Sheridan County, Wyoming, h[as] immunity from damages arising 
from filing and failing to timely dismiss C 412-10-94?

 

III.

Whether Constitutional guarantees were violated when 
the Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners, Sheridan County, Wyoming, 
filed and maintained C 412-10-94; including the United States and Wyoming 
Constitutions and W.S. § 1-26-516 Inverse Condemnation?

 

IV.

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is 
applicable?

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      Appellee Sheridan 
County Board of County Commissioners (Sheridan County) filed a petition for a 
declaratory judgment in an effort to resolve a dispute over the use of a road 
known as East Lane. Doenz was named in the action and filed a motion for a 
partial summary judgment, alleging that he possessed an easement of record for 
the use of East Lane. The district court granted Doenz's motion, finding that he 
held an express easement for ingress and egress purposes. 

 

[¶5]      Doenz 
subsequently filed a complaint against Sheridan County, claiming that Sheridan 
County had been negligent in naming him in the declaratory judgment action, and 
requested attorney's fees for defending against that action. Sheridan County 
moved for a summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under 
the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The district court agreed that Sheridan 
County had immunity and granted the motion.

 

[¶6]      Doenz responded 
with a motion to file an amended complaint in an attempt to assert a claim under 
42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the hearing to consider this motion, Doenz advanced a claim 
for inverse condemnation under WYO. STAT. § 1-26-516 (1997). The district court 
denied Doenz's motion to amend his complaint to allege a § 1983 claim but gave 
him the opportunity to file a second proposed amended complaint to properly 
assert an inverse condemnation action.

 

[¶7]      Doenz thereafter 
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and attached a copy 
of the proposed complaint. Instead of precisely alleging an inverse condemnation 
claim, Doenz's proposed complaint asserted a slander of title claim along with 
other claims which had already been decided by the district court. The district 
court denied Doenz's motion, and Doenz appeals from that 
order.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶8]      We will reverse 
the denial of a motion to amend a pleading only when the district court has 
abused its discretion. Herbel v. S.K. 
Wood Company, 897 P.2d 478, 480 (Wyo. 1995); W.R.C.P. 15. A court abuses its 
discretion when it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the 
circumstances. Johnston v. 
Stephenson, 938 P.2d 861, 862 (Wyo. 1997). The party who is attacking the 
trial court's ruling has the burden to establish an abuse of discretion, and the 
ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. Id.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶9]      Although Doenz 
presents several issues for our review, most of them pertain to orders that 
Doenz did not appeal from. The only issue properly before this Court is whether 
the district court correctly denied Doenz's motion for leave to file a second 
amended complaint. We, therefore, will limit our discussion to that 
issue.

 

[¶10]   The district court gave Doenz the 
opportunity to file a second amended complaint to assert an inverse condemnation 
cause of action under § 1-26-516. That statute provides:

 

When a person possessing the power of condemnation 
takes possession of or damages land in which he has no interest, or 
substantially diminishes the use or value of land, due to activities on 
adjoining land without the authorization of the owner of the land or before 
filing an action of condemnation, the owner of the land may file an action in 
district court seeking damages for the taking or damage and shall be granted 
litigation expenses if damages are awarded to the owner.

 

Section 
1-26-516.

 

[¶11]   In his appeal to this Court, Doenz 
has failed to accurately apply the statute to the facts of this case to 
establish how the prescribed activities set out in the statute relate to his 
situation. Although he attempts to do so by resorting to arguments already 
disposed of by the district court, he did not appeal from those rulings, and we, 
therefore, will not review them. He, consequently, has not satisfied his burden 
of establishing that the district court abused its 
discretion.

 

[¶12]   Affirmed.