Title: Carney v. Board of County Com'rs of Sublette County

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Carney v. Board of County Com'rs of Sublette County1988 WY 86757 P.2d 556Case Number: 87-13, 87-14Decided: 06/23/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
John Otis 
CARNEY, Black Butte Partners, a partnership, and Carney Land Company, a Wyoming 
corporation, Appellants (Petitioners)

 
 
v.

 
 
BOARD OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SUBLETTE COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent), Richard 
B. Dew and Peyton H. Dew, Appellees (Respondents).

 
 
Richard B. DEW 
and Peyton H. Dew, Appellants (Respondents)

 
 
v.

 
 
BOARD OF 
COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS OF SUBLETTE COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee 
(Respondent)

 
 
v.

 
 
John Otis 
CARNEY, Black Butte Partners, a partnership, and Carney Land Company, a Wyoming 
corporation, Appellees (Petitioners)

 
 
Henry C. Phibbs, II, Phibbs & 
Resor, Jackson, for John Otis Carney, Black Butte Partners and Carney Land 
Company.

 
 
John V. Crow, SubletteCounty Attorney, Pinedale, for Board of CountyCommissioners of Sublette County, Wyoming.

 
 
Kenneth S. Cohen, Jackson, for Richard B. 
Dew and Peyton H. Dew.

 
 

Before 
Brown, C.J., and 
Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit and Macy, JJ.

 
 
Thomas, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     The primary question 
posed in these consolidated cases concerns the nature and scope of the procedure 
contemplated by the phrase in the Wyoming Statutes relating to the establishment 
of private roads, which provides, with respect to the meeting of the  viewers and appraisers, that "all persons 
interested may appear and be heard by the viewers." Section 24-9-101, W.S.1977 
(1987 Cum.Supp.). There are collateral issues raised relating to claims that the 
decision of the viewers and appraisers was premised, in substantial part, upon 
information not material under the statutory criteria for location of a private 
road and a concern, in the cross-appeal, that damages were awarded for the 
establishment of the road in areas in which  the applicants for the establishment of 
the private road already held easements. We are satisfied that the board of 
county commissioners correctly followed the statute in this instance; the 
parties were afforded appropriate due process; and the district court correctly 
affirmed the order of the board of county commissioners confirming the report of 
the viewers and appraisers and declaring the establishment of a private road. We 
affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

 
 

[¶2.]     In their appeal, the 
owners of the servient estate, John Otis Carney, Black Butte Partners, a 
partnership, and Carney Land Company, a Wyoming corporation (Carneys), set forth the 
following issues:

 
 
"I. Should the order of the district 
court affirming the decision of the county commissioners be reversed by virtue 
of the fact that appellants were denied an opportunity to appear before the 
viewers and appraisers and be heard regarding the question of the damages caused 
by the location of the roadway?

 
 
"II. Should the order of affirmance 
of the district court and the decision of the county commissioners approving the 
report of the viewers and appraisers be reversed because the decision of the 
viewers  and appraisers was based, 
in substantial part, upon hearsay information regarding a matter which is not 
relevant to the statutory criterion to be utilized by the viewers and appraisers 
for establishing the private roadway, which information appellants were not 
afforded any opportunity to respond to?"

 
 
Richard and Peyton Dew (Dews), as 
appellees, rephrase those issues in this fashion:

 
 
"I. Were appellants denied an 
opportunity to address the viewers and appraisers on the issue of damages? If 
so, must this case be remanded to the administrative level in order to rectify 
this error?

 
 
"II. Was the decision of the viewers 
and appraisers in selecting 'the Carney route' based in substantial part upon 
information which they did not have a right to consider? If so, must the case be 
remanded to the administrative level in order to rectify this 
error?"

 
 

[¶3.]     The Dews took their own 
appeal in this case, and the issue they present is stated in this 
way:

 
 
"Should appellants have been 
required to pay damages for those portions of the private roadway which were 
already subject to recorded rights-of-way in their favor?"

 
 
The Carneys, in defending the Dews' 
appeal, identify the issue to be:

 
 
"An applicant  for a private roadway, who seeks to rely 
upon recorded right-of-way easements, must submit such easements as part of the 
application to the county commissioners, to allow any challenge to the easements 
to be judicially determined before the easements are used for any purpose in 
connection with the roadway proceeding."

 
 

[¶4.]     The Dews are the owners 
of 240 acres of land in Sublette 
County, Wyoming. The 
property has been in the Dew family since the early 1920's, and, until the 
1940's, a dude ranch was operated there. Since sometime in the 1940's, the Dews 
have used the property primarily for a summer residence. Historically, access to 
the property was had by traveling over a dirt road that traversed the Carneys' 
property, and the Carneys never objected to the usage of that road by the Dews. 
Grants of easements had been obtained that purported to create a right to use a 
portion of the historical access road, but the Dews did not have easements that 
would permit access all the way to their property from a public road. The 
Carneys never made any objection to the usage of the access road traversing 
their property by the Dews.

 
 

[¶5.]     The absence of complete 
access to the Dews' property became a matter  of concern in 1983 when they decided to 
sell their land and listed it with a broker. They learned then that, in the 
absence of legally enforceable access, the property was virtually unmarketable. 
The Dews negotiated with the Carneys for an easement over a route described as 
the "Carney route," but those negotiations were not fruitful. At that time, the 
Dews became aware of a potential route to their property, which was shorter and 
which traversed the Carneys' land in part and in part lands of various third 
parties. This way of access was called the "Goodman 
route."

 
 

[¶6.]     In January of 1985, the 
Dews pursued the procedure set forth in §§ 24-9-101 through 24-9-103, W.S.1977, 
and filed an application for establishment of a private road with the Board of 
County Commissioners of SubletteCounty (Board). In accordance with the 
provisions of the statute, the Dews' application asserted that their property 
was without access, and they described the two possible routes, designating the 
Goodman route as the preferred route. The initial hearing, contemplated by the 
statute, occurred before the Board on March 19, 1985, and the Board then 
determined that the Dews' property was landlocked. In compliance  with the requirements of the statute, the 
Board appointed three viewers and appraisers to meet at the proposed routes on 
June 7, 1985 to locate a private road and assess damages to any affected 
property owners.

 
 

[¶7.]     In accordance with the 
Board's order, the viewers and appraisers met at the designated time and place. 
They invited interested persons in attendance to address them regarding the 
proposed routes. After hearing the comments of those present, including 
representatives of the Carneys and the Dews, the viewers and appraisers traveled 
over each of the proposed routes. There is no record of the dialogue that was 
exchanged prior to the examination of the proposed routes. Later, the viewers 
and appraisers prepared a report reflecting their decision that the private road 
should follow the Carney route and their assessment of damages at $ 1,000 per 
acre. This report was presented to the Board on June 18, 1985, and a hearing 
then was held. The Board heard statements from the attorneys for the Dews and 
the Carneys, and these counsel were afforded the opportunity to cross-examine 
the viewers and appraisers, which the Carneys' attorney did, at some length. In 
the course of this hearing,  the 
viewers and appraisers decided to amend their report orally to permit a 
deviation in a portion of the road away from the Carney residence. At the 
conclusion of this hearing, the Board accepted the report as orally amended and 
ordered the Dews to survey and prepare a plat of the designated 
road.

 
 

[¶8.]     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. Upon determining that the Dews 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.

 
 

[¶9.]     Both the Dews and 
Carneys filed petitions for judicial review in the district court, arguing 
essentially the same issues that they urge in this appeal. The district court 
entered its order affirming the Board's decision, and, after a motion for 
reconsideration presented by the Carneys was denied, these cross-appeals were 
perfected.

 
 

[¶10.]  We first treat with the contention by the 
Carneys that they were denied due process because, prior to the time that the 
viewers and appraisers made their decision locating the private road, the 
Carneys were not  afforded an 
opportunity to address the viewers and appraisers, particularly, with respect to 
damages. This contention is founded upon the procedural step described in the 
statute as follows:

 
 
"* * * * Said 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 such 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, and if 
for any reason such viewers and appraisers are unable to meet at the time set by 
the board to view said proposed road, they may fix some other date, but shall be 
required to give notice in writing to the owner or resident agent or occupant of 
said lands over which said road is proposed to be laid of the time and place 
where such viewers shall meet, at least ten (10) days before viewing such road, 
at which time and place all persons interested may appear and be heard by said 
viewers." Section 24-9-101, W.S.1977.1

 
 
The contention is founded upon the 
phrase of the statute providing that "all persons interested may appear and be 
heard  by the 
viewers."

 
 

[¶11.]  No record was maintained of the 
proceedings at the time of the June 7, 1985 viewing. From subsequent 
descriptions of  what occurred, it 
appears that, before traversing the proposed routes, the viewers and appraisers 
heard the comments of the interested parties who were present, particularly, 
counsel for the Carneys. At that time, the county attorney suggested that it 
would be of assistance to the viewers and appraisers if counsel would submit 
written summations of what they perceived to be the proper elements of damages. 
After the viewing had occurred, the county attorney offered the further 
suggestion that counsel wait until the viewers and appraisers had determined the 
route before submitting their recommended elements of damages. Any effort on the 
part of counsel to submit their written views on the elements of damages was 
frustrated, however, when the viewers and appraisers returned to the courthouse, 
met privately for thirty-five minutes to an hour and then advised the county 
attorney that they had made a decision as to the route and the amount of 
damages. The Carneys contend that they were entitled to address the viewers and 
appraisers on both the route to be selected and the appropriate damages to be 
assessed prior to any decision by the viewers and appraisers. We do not agree 
that this is  the 
law.

 
 

[¶12.]  We have recognized that the procedure to 
establish a private road set forth in the statutes requires a due process 
hearing because of the property rights that are involved. Gold v Board of 
CountyCommissioners of Teton County, Wyo., 
658 P.2d 690 (1983). In that case, we held that the right to the due process 
hearing must be afforded before the board of county commissioners pursuant to § 
24-9-103, W.S.1977,2 and that the affected landowner 
must be afforded a right to appear before the board to contest both the taking 
and the damage awards determined by the appraisers. Gold v Board of 
CountyCommissioners of TetonCounty, supra, controls the issue 
urged here by the Carneys. Since the right of the Carneys to due process is 
satisfied by the hearing before the Board, we conclude that the legislature did 
not intend that a hearing also would occur before the viewers and 
appraisers.

 
 

[¶13.]  In this instance, at the subsequent 
meeting of the Board, when the viewers and appraisers presented their report, 
counsel for both parties were heard by the Board, and the viewers and appraisers 
were examined at some length by counsel for the Carneys. The record discloses 
that the viewers and appraisers were persuaded to alter the proposed route as a 
result of this examination. This adjustment in the route appeared to be the 
thrust of counsels' examination and arguments to the Board, and the proposed 
assessment of damages was not challenged, except for the statement that the 
Carneys had not had an opportunity to address the viewers and appraisers on this 
question. No effort was made to submit evidence as to what the Carneys believed 
the appropriate assessment of damages should be, nor was there any contention 
that the figure reached by the appraisers was inadequate.

 
 

[¶14.]  The Carneys' right to a hearing was 
afforded to them at the hearing before the Board. The procedures utilized by the 
viewers and appraisers in this instance satisfied the statutory phrase, "at 
which time and place all persons interested may appear and be heard by the 
viewers." The ranch manager for the Carneys and their attorney met with the 
viewers and appraisers before the viewing, and counsel discussed with them the 
proposed routes. The Carneys' attorney also went with the viewers as they drove 
over the alternate routes. The statute does not specify what information  the viewers and appraisers are to 
receive, nor does it indicate what weight they must accord to what they hear. 
The verb used in the statute is "may," not "shall," and it is not used in a 
context that would require us to afford a mandatory connotation to the word 
"may." See Board of County Commissioners of the County of Fremont v. State, 
ex rel. Miller, Wyo., 369 P.2d 537, 542 (1962). The Carneys were afforded an 
opportunity to test damages at the hearing before the Board, but they did not 
pursue that issue at that time. Consequently, there could not possibly be any 
prejudice because they were not afforded an opportunity to address the viewers 
and appraisers on the question of damages. Under the circumstances, there was no 
denial of due process.

 
 

[¶15.]  In their second claim of error, the 
Carneys contend that the decision of the Board in this instance was arbitrary, 
capricious and not in conformity with law because it adopted the report of the 
viewers and appraisers, which was, in part, premised on an assumption that a 
portion of the route selected would continue to be utilized by an oil company. 
In their report, as substantiated by examination at the hearing before the 
Board, the viewers  and appraisers 
set forth several reasons for their selection of the Carney route, which 
included: (1) it was an established route that had been used for years; (2) the 
alternate Goodman route would require road building and placement of gates and 
cattleguards; (3) the Carney route is an improved road; and (4) the Carney route 
at that time afforded access to oil and gas developers as well as other ranchers 
in the area so that any additional use by the Dews would be minimal. Upon 
examination, one of the viewers agreed that the viewers and appraisers had no 
actual knowledge of any future rights of the oil company to traverse the road, 
but he explained:

 
 
"You have one well that's sitting 
over there just a half mile off of that main route that has a Christmas tree on 
it, it's a gravel road. You also have the quite elaborate graveled road and 
elaborate bridge there, and I, for the life of me, cannot understand why an oil 
company would build that if they did not have any intentions of future 
application."

 
 

[¶16.]  The statutory criterion for selection of 
a route for a private road is that the viewers and appraisers are to locate a 
route that will "do the least possible damage to the lands through which such 
private road is  located." Section 
24-9-101, W.S.1977. In that regard, the route chosen need not be the most 
convenient  and reasonable route 
possible, taking into account all possible routes, but it only need be a 
reasonable and convenient route. McGuire v. McGuire, Wyo., 
608 P.2d 1278 (1980). The statute does not specify those things the viewers and 
appraisers are to consider other than the "least possible damage" to the 
property. The legislature has directed, however, that these viewers and 
appraisers should be three disinterested freeholders and electors of the county, 
and, presumably, that requirement contemplates that they will be knowledgeable 
with respect to the local conditions and will apply that knowledge and their 
common sense in arriving at a determination. That was done in this 
case.

 
 

[¶17.]  The viewers and appraisers gave 
substantial reasons for selecting the Carney route. Upon receiving their report 
and conducting a hearing, the Board then accepted and confirmed the report of 
the viewers and appraisers. We note that, at the hearing, the Carneys did not 
choose to refute the assumption of the viewers and appraisers that the oil 
company would continue to use at least part of the Carney route. The standard 
invoked in determining whether an agency's decisions are arbitrary, capricious 
or an abuse  of discretion is 
whether it is supported by evidence found in the record Holding's Little 
America v. Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County, Wyo., 670 P.2d 699 (1983). There is ample evidence in this record to support the decision of 
the Board. We hold, contrary to the Carneys' claim, that this decision was 
neither arbitrary nor capricious, and it was in conformity with the applicable 
law.

 
 

[¶18.]  We turn then to the contention on 
cross-appeal by the Dews that they should not have been required to pay damages 
for those portions of the private road which they claim were covered by prior, 
granted easements of record. On the record, there is no way to tell whether the 
private road established by the order of the Board actually followed any prior 
easements of record. We conclude, however, that, whatever that situation might 
be, the Dews abandoned any rights they might have had under those prior 
easements, and the damages assessed by the viewers and appraisers and approved 
by the Board were correct.

 
 

[¶19.]  Both of these prior easements were 
entitled "Right-of-Way Grant," and they were executed in 1971 and recorded in 
1973. The grantors on these instruments were Donald and Nellie Rogers, who  were predecessors in title to certain of 
the Carneys' lands, and Carney Land Company. Each of the instruments grants to 
the Dews a right-of-way over "the presently existing roads situate upon and over 
[a portion of the present Carney lands]." The Dews now contend that 
approximately two-thirds of the Carney route is covered by these prior 
easements.

 
 

[¶20.]  In the course of the initial hearing 
before the Board on the Dews' application for a private road, testimony was 
received from an agent of a title insurance company. The agent stated that his 
office was of the opinion that the Dews had no legally enforceable access to 
their property. He testified further that, in the course of a title search, his 
office had discovered the two recorded easements. The attorney for the Dews did 
not pursue this information other than to inquire whether the witness was aware 
of the effect of § 34-1-141, W.S.1977, making void certain easements not 
specifically described in the recorded instrument.3 At a later point in the same  hearing, Richard Dew testified that 
everyone who was involved questioned the validity of these prior 
easements.

 
 

[¶21.]  The application for a private road filed 
by the Dews did not refer to these easements. No mention of them was made to the 
viewers and appraisers on the date of the viewing. At the hearing before the 
Board on June 18, 1985, when the parties were afforded an opportunity to contest 
the report of the viewers and appraisers, the question of the easements never 
was raised, but counsel for the Dews reiterated the preference of his clients 
for the Goodman route. At that time, he asserted, on behalf of the Dews, that 
the assessed damages would be significantly less if the shorter route were the 
one the viewers and appraisers selected. The product of that hearing was the 
Board's acceptance of the viewers' report with respect to the location of the 
private road and the assessed damages.

 
 

[¶22.]  After the survey work was completed, in 
February of 1986, the Dews' attorney for the first time advised the county 
attorney that his clients intended to rely on the prior easements and to pay 
only those damages attributable to the portion of the road not subject to the 
prior easements. The county attorney responded that he believed the decision of 
the Board in accepting the report of the viewers and appraisers  was final and that he would recommend to 
the Board that it stand on the report as it had been accepted. A final Board 
hearing on the matter then was held, on July 1, 1986, for the purpose of 
determining if the survey work and plat were completed and if the costs and 
damages had been paid according to the assessments. These are prerequisites to 
the establishment of the private road. At that time, counsel for the Dews sought 
to raise the issue of the easements before the Board and offered evidence with 
respect to them. The Board refused to accept the evidence and proceeded to 
declare the surveyed route established as a private road.

 
 

[¶23.]  The conduct of the Dews throughout the 
decision-making phase of this proceeding was inconsistent with any assertion of 
their rights under the recorded easements, and, in fact, they evidenced a 
purpose inconsistent with the further existence of such easements. They did not 
include the easements as a part of their application for the establishment of a 
private road nor in the hearing. Consistently, they urged the selection of an 
alternate route which they preferred. At the time the recorded easements were 
mentioned in the initial hearing, the Dews, through  their counsel, sought to downplay their 
significance in order to bolster their claim to the alternate route. They waited 
until the decision-making process was completed, and damages had been assessed, 
before asserting their rights under the alleged easements. In their briefs, the 
Dews offer several reasons to explain the fact that they did not raise the issue 
of the easements earlier, including: (1) a concern over complicating the 
proceedings with questions of the validity of the easements, (2) a concern that 
the easements might be declared void because of their insufficient descriptions 
and (3) their preference for the Goodman route.

 
 

[¶24.]  In Wyoming, except to the extent that common law 
has been changed by statute, the rules of common law are invoked with respect to 
easements. An easement can be abandoned at common law. In one of the leading 
texts on real property, the proposition is stated in this 
way:

 
 
"The owner of an easement may 
abandon his right so as to relieve the servient estate of the encumbrance, but 
the abandonment must be evidenced by unequivocal acts showing clearly such 
purpose." 2 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property § 443 
at 728-729 (1980 Repl.).

 
 
Such an abandonment "is effected by 
unequivocal acts in pais inconsistent with further assertion of rights." 2 G. 
Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property, supra, § 443, at 730. 
Further propositions appear in this text to the effect that "an express 
abandonment of the easement is implied from circumstances" and "there must be 
evidence of a present  intent to 
relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with its further existence" (2 
G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property, supra, § 443 at 
739, 741). We perceive the facts of this record, including the reasons advanced 
by the Dews for not earlier raising the issue of the easements, as manifesting 
an intent to relinquish easements that can be implied from the circumstances. 
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the record is that the Dews 
determined not to rely upon any easement rights they may have had in order to 
advance the establishment of the private road over the Goodman route. They only 
wanted to assert such rights when it appeared that it might be a mitigative 
factor with respect to damages. We hold that, under the circumstances, these 
easement rights were effectively abandoned,  and the Board properly refused to 
consider them in assessing damages for the private road.

 
 

[¶25.]  The order of the district court affirming 
the decision of the Board of County Commissioners in this case is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1This statute was amended with an 
effective date of May 23, 1985. The statute now reads as 
follows:

 
 
"* * * * 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, 
which 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." 
Section 24-9-101, W.S.1977 (1987 Cum.Supp.).

 
 
We do not perceive any significance in 
these adjustments to the language of the statute.

 
 

2Section 24-9-103, W.S.1977, 
provides:

 
 
"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."

 
 

3Section 34-1-141, W.S.1977 (1987 
Cum.Supp.), provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) Except as provided in subsection 
(c) of this section, easements across land executed and recorded after the 
effective date of this act which do not specifically describe the location of 
the easement are null and void and of no force and 
effect.

* * * 
*

"(c) For purposes of this act [section], 
an easement or agreement which does not specifically describe the location of 
the easement or which grants a right to locate an easement at a later date shall 
be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of execution of the easement 
or agreement. If the specific description is not recorded within one (1) year, 
then the easement or agreement shall be of no further force and 
effect."