Title: Steplock v. Board of County Com'rs for Johnson County

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Steplock v. Board of County Com'rs for Johnson County1995 WY 56894 P.2d 599Case Number: 93-270, 93-271Decided: 04/20/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Harry 
A. STEPLOCK; Charles C. Willis; Karen K. Willis; Garvin Taylor; August Chabot; 
Julia Chabot; May Chabot; and Christie Walker, Appellants (Petitioners),

v.

The 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee 
(Respondent).
        
   Nicki TAYLOR, Executrix of the Estate of Curtis 
T. Taylor, Deceased, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, 
Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Johnson County, John C. Brackley, 
J.

Patrick Dixon of Dixon & 
Despain, Casper, for appellant 
Steplock.

Dennis M. Kirven of Kirven 
& Kirven, P.C., Buffalo, for appellants Willis, Taylor, Chabot, and 
Walker.

Margo Harlan Sabec, Casper, 
for appellant Nicki 
Taylor.

Greg L. Goddard, County and 
Pros. Atty., Johnson County, Buffalo for 
appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE,* 
MACY, and TAYLOR, JJ.

* 
Retired July 6, 1994.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      The issues in 
this case arise out of an effort by the Johnson County Board of County 
Commissioners (Johnson County) to establish a county road based upon the 
doctrine of prescription. Private landowners (landowners),1 whose property would be traversed 
by the road, appealed the resolution of Johnson County to the district court and 
now appeal from an order affirming Johnson County. Issues pressed include the 
unlawful substitution of a different survey plat and legal description after the 
evidence at the administrative hearing was closed; the failure to establish the 
width of the road and the use of an arbitrary width of sixty-six feet; failure 
to comply with statutory requirements including a plat that was not an accurate 
survey, a plat and survey that did not meet statutory requirements, and 
defective notice of hearing; the denial of due process; the failure of the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law to conform to the Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act (WYO. STAT. § 16-3-101 to -115 (1990 & Supp. 1994)); the 
failure in several respects to establish adverse possession of the road; and an 
ultimate contention of an illegal taking. We are satisfied Johnson County failed 
to follow the procedure for establishing a county road by prescription and, in 
fact, never really did establish the county road except for a short section. We 
reverse this case and remand it to the district court with direction that it 
should reverse Johnson County and vacate the findings of fact and conclusions of 
law reached by the Board of County Commissioners on January 19, 1993, so far as 
those relate to the Barnum Mountain Road.

[¶2]      In their Brief of 
Appellants, the landowners in No. 93-270 assert the following 
issues:

A. Did the Board unlawfully substitute a survey plat 
and legal description after the close of evidence?

B. Did the Board fail to establish any width of the 
route claimed to have been traveled by the public and unlawfully and arbitrarily 
establish the width at sixty-six (66) feet after the close of the 
evidence?

C. Did the Board fail to comply with all requirements 
of WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101, (1977)?

D. Were landowners unlawfully denied due process by 
being denied the opportunity to conduct voir dire 
examinations?

E. Did the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
fail to conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures 
Act?

F. Did the Board fail to establish the elements of 
adverse possession?

G. Is WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101 (1977) unconstitutional 
on its face or as applied?

In her Brief of Appellant 
Nicki Taylor, Executrix of Estate of Curtis T. Taylor, Deceased (in No. 93-271) 
separately states these issues:

A. Use of Appellant's land for road was permissive, 
and Appellee failed to prove the elements of adverse possession of the lands 
taken.

B. Land to be taken must be 
identified.

C. Refusal by Appellee to accept gift of right of way 
tendered by Appellant was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of 
discretion.

D. Appellee lacked jurisdiction to proceed under W.S. 
Section 24-1-101 (1977).

E. Appellant was denied due 
process.

F. Appellee's findings, conclusions, and resolution 
are arbitrary, capricious and lack support of substantial 
evidence.

G. Appellee's actions are without observance of the 
procedures required by law.

H. The direct and proximate result of Appellee's 
Resolution No. 133 is a double taking of Appellant's 
property.

I. The taking of Appellant's real property interest 
pursuant to W.S. 24-1-101 (1977) violated Appellant's rights under the U.S. 
Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

The issues articulated in 
the Brief of Appellee Board of County Commissioners (answering in both cases) 
are:

Was there substantial evidence to support the 
decision of the Board of County Commissioners in declaring County Road 241 to be 
a public road?

What is the effect on the public of the Johnson 
County Board of County Commissioners determining that the statutory requirements 
for establishing a public road by prescription under the dictates of Wyoming 
statute 24-1-101 have been met in this case?

The landowners structure an 
additional issue which is:

Have the Appeals No. 93-270 and No. 93-271 been 
consolidated?

[¶3]      In December of 
1992, Johnson County issued a notice of hearing stating its intent to hold a 
hearing on December 21, 1992 to establish a county road by prescription over 
some thirteen miles of road in southern Johnson County. This road comprises 
three segments. The first runs westerly from Freeman Draw for approximately two 
and one-half miles to Barnum, and this segment is known as the "Barnum Road." 
The second segment runs westerly across an intersecting north-south road for 
approximately 2,000 feet. This intersecting road is known as the "Bar C Access 
Road." The third segment commences at the west edge of the Bar C Access Road and 
continues in a westerly direction for approximately ten miles to the Washakie 
County line.

[¶4]      The segment known 
as the Barnum Road is elevated, crowned with drainage areas along the side, 
paved, and has been posted with traffic signs. The Bar C access road is elevated 
and crowned, an improved gravel road, and also posted with traffic signs. The 
final segment which the parties allude to as the Barnum Mountain Road consists 
primarily of a two-track road over rugged terrain with some intersecting fences 
along the way. On some of those fences, there are posted signs that read 
"Private Property No Trespassing."

[¶5]      The notice of 
hearing, which was to be held at the Johnson County Courthouse in Buffalo, 
stated the purpose of the hearing was to establish a "public highway 
right-of-way under the common-law doctrine of prescription in that road * * * 
commonly known as `County Road 241' and/or the `Barnum Mountain Road.'" That 
notice went on to state:

Issues to be determined include public usage of said 
road for a period in excess of ten (10) years; the recorded plat and survey and 
county maintenance and control over said road. Issues involve requirements under 
Wyoming Statute 24-1-101 for the creation and establishment of a public 
highway.

[¶6]      The procedure for 
the establishment of a county road by prescription is set forth in WYO. STAT. § 
24-1-101 (1993), which provides, in pertinent part, with emphasis 
added:

(a) On and after January 1, 1924, all roads within 
this state shall be highways, which have been or may be declared by law to be 
state or county highways. It shall be the duty of the several boards of county 
commissioners, within their respective counties, prior to said date, to 
determine what, if any, such roads now or heretofore traveled but not heretofore 
officially established and recorded, are necessary or important for the public 
use as permanent roads, and to cause such roads to be recorded, or if need be 
laid out, established and recorded, and all roads recorded as aforesaid, shall 
be highways. No other roads shall be highways unless and until lawfully 
established as such by official authority. Except, nothing contained herein shall be 
construed as preventing the creation or establishment of a public highway 
right-of-way with reference to state and county highways under the common-law 
doctrines of adverse possession or prescription either prior to or subsequent to 
the enactment hereof. If any such board shall resolve the creation or 
establishment of a public highway right-of-way based upon the common-law 
doctrines of adverse possession or prescription, it shall, following the filing 
of a plat and accurate survey required in accordance with the terms and 
provisions of W.S. 24-3-109, proceed with the publication of the proposed road 
for three (3) successive weeks in three (3) successive issues of some official 
newspaper published in the county, if any such there be, and if no newspaper be 
published therein, such notice shall be posted in at least three (3) public 
places along the line of the proposed road, which notice shall be exclusive of 
all other notices and may be in the following form:

To all whom it may concern: The board of county 
commissioners of ____ county has resolved the creation and establishment of a 
public highway right-of-way under the common-law doctrine of prescription in 
that the road was constructed or substantially maintained by the (either the 
state or county) for general public use for a period of (ten years or longer) 
said road commencing at ____ in ____ county, Wyoming, running thence (here 
describe in general terms the points and courses thereof), and terminating at. 
____

All objections thereto must be filed in writing with 
the county clerk of said county before noon on the ____ day of ____ A.D., ____, 
or such road will be established without reference to such 
objections.

_________________________ County 
Clerk

Dated ____ A.D.

(b) The 
county commissioners shall cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed by 
registered or certified mail to all persons owning lands or claiming any 
interest in any lands over or across which the road is proposed to be created or 
established. The publication, posting and mailings of such notice shall be a 
legal and sufficient notice of all persons owning lands or claiming any interest 
in lands over which the proposed road is to be created or established. No 
viewers or appraisers shall be appointed, nor shall any damage claims be 
considered or heard, and the sole objections to be heard by the board shall be 
directed against the creation or establishment of such right-of-way under the 
common-law doctrines of adverse possession or prescription. Any objector may 
appeal from the final decision of the board of the county commissioners to the 
district court of the county in which the land is situated. Notice of such 
appeal must be made to the county clerk within thirty (30) days after such 
decision has been made by the board, or such claim shall be deemed to have been 
abandoned. Within ten (10) days after the notice of an appeal is filed in his 
office, the county clerk shall make out and file in the office of the clerk of 
the district court, in his county, a transcript of the papers on file in his 
office, and the proceedings of the board in relation to such creation and 
establishment. The proceedings on appeal shall be governed by the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act. If the appeal is upheld the appellant shall be 
reimbursed by the county for all reasonable costs of asserting his 
claim.

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

(d) Only that portion of county highways, not to 
exceed sixty-six (66) feet in width, which was actually constructed or 
substantially maintained by the county and traveled and used by the general 
public for a period of ten (10) years or longer, either prior to or subsequent 
to the enactment hereof, shall be presumed to be public highways lawfully 
established as such by official authority.

[¶7]      The statute 
references the filing of a plat and accurate survey in accordance with the terms 
of WYO. STAT. § 24-3-109 (1993) which provides:

If, upon considering and acting upon the report of 
the viewer, or otherwise, the board of the county commissioners shall decide to 
lay out such road, THEY SHALL CAUSE THE COUNTY SURVEYOR TO MAKE AN ACCURATE 
SURVEY THEREOF, IF SUCH SURVEY IS DEEMED NECESSARY, AND TO PLAT AND RECORD THE 
SAME IN THE BOOK PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE; and a copy of said 
plat and notes of survey shall, without unnecessary delay, be filed in the 
office of the county clerk. (Emphasis added.)

[¶8]      In accordance 
with WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101, notice was published in the Buffalo Bulletin, an 
"official newspaper published in the county" for three successive weeks on 
December 3, 10, and 17 of 1992. With respect to the statutory requirement that 
notice be mailed, "to all persons owning lands or claiming any interest in any 
lands over or across which the road is proposed to be created or established * * 
*," it is uncontroverted A. Louis Steplock and Deborah G. Steplock, who are 
landowners entitled to notice, did not receive any mailed notice of the proposed 
hearing.

[¶9]      Johnson County 
proceeded to hold the hearing as scheduled on December 21, 1992. The county was 
required to file a plat and accurate survey in accordance with the requirements 
of WYO. STAT. § 24-3-109, quoted above. Kern v. Deerwood Ranch, 528 P.2d 910 
(Wyo. 1974). The statute stipulates the county surveyor is to make an accurate 
survey of the proposed road, and plat and record that survey with the county 
clerk. In addition, he is to file a copy of the plat and survey notes with the 
clerk. To satisfy this requirement, a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) survey was 
utilized. The accuracy of that survey is disputed in the record.2 It is clear neither Dr. Michael 
Long, who performed the field work for the survey, nor Mr. Gerald Jessen, who 
supervised the field work, was a county surveyor.

[¶10]   The statute provides a road taken 
by prescription cannot exceed sixty-six feet in width. The statute further 
limits the width of the road, however, to that portion "which was actually 
constructed or substantially maintained by the county and traveled and used by 
the general public for a period of ten (10) years or longer." With respect to 
that segment of County Road 241, identified as the Barnum Mountain Road, this 
ten-mile segment was no more than a rocky, two-track trail up the mountain. The 
commissioners, however, set the width at a maximum of sixty-six feet in their 
conclusions of law, although no testimony in the record discloses the actual 
width of the road as used by either the landowners or the 
public.

[¶11]   The elements of prescription were 
also addressed at the hearing. With respect to the two and one-half miles of 
paved road known as the Barnum Road, the record discloses no dispute as to the 
fact it has been traveled by the public and maintained by Johnson County for a 
period of ten years or more. On the other hand, there is no evidence in the 
record to demonstrate continuous maintenance for ten years by Johnson County or 
public use for ten years on the unpaved Barnum Mountain Road. The landowners 
often required others to obtain permission from them to travel on much of that 
segment of the road. Even those county employees who did some maintenance on the 
road in the form of grading it in the spring testified the grading was not 
accomplished each year for a statutory period of ten 
years.

[¶12]   After the conclusion of the 
hearing, the commissioners adopted Resolution No. 133 and issued findings of 
fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act. Resolution No. 133 reads:

THE JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS do declare the 
Barnum Mountain Road to commence at Freeman Draw and to end at the west edge of 
the Bar C Access Road.

WHEREAS, the Barnum Mountain Road, sometimes known as 
Johnson County Road No. 241, was traveled by area ranchers and the general 
public continuously for at least ten years during the period from at least 1947 
through 1977; and,

WHEREAS, Johnson County, Wyoming maintained the 
entire Barnum Mountain Road under a claim of right from at least 1951 through 
1979 with a higher level of maintenance however on the lower portion of the 
road, between Freeman Draw and Bar C Road, and,

WHEREAS, the survey and plat of the entire Barnum 
Mountain Road filed in the office of the County Clerk of Johnson County, 
Wyoming, as part of these proceedings, are statutorily sufficient. That portion 
of the road between Freeman Draw and the Bar C Road being more particularly 
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein; 
and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to W.S. 24-1-101 and 16-3-107, 
reasonable notice of these proceedings has been given to all required 
landowners; and,

WHEREAS, the elements of a prescriptive easement in 
the public as well as county control and maintenance of the Barnum Mountain Road 
required by W.S. 24-1-101 have been established by the evidence presented 
herein,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Johnson County Road 
No. 241 a/k/a the Barnum Mountain Road shall commence at Freeman Draw and shall 
end at the west edge of the Bar C Access Road. Said road right of way is 
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shall be a Sixty-Six Foot (66') 
right of way, being Thirty-Three Feet (33') on either side of the centerline of 
the road.

DATED this 19th day of January, 1993. BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS JOHNSON COUNTY, WYOMING

The findings of fact and 
conclusions of law which were filed simultaneously with Resolution No. 133 
state, in pertinent part:

1.         The 
Barnum Mountain Road, sometimes known as Johnson County Road No. 241, was 
traveled by area ranchers and the general public continuously for at least ten 
years during the period from at least 1947 through 1977.

2.         
Johnson County, Wyoming maintained the entire Barnum Mountain Road under 
a claim of right from at least 1951 through 1979 with a higher level of 
maintenance however on the lower portion of the road, between Freeman Draw and 
Bar C Road.

3.         The 
survey and plat of the entire Barnum Mountain Road filed in the office of the 
County Clerk of Johnson County, Wyoming, as part of these proceedings, are 
statutorily sufficient. That portion of the road between Freeman Draw and the 
Bar C Road being more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and 
by reference incorporated herein.

4.         
Pursuant to W.S. 24-1-101 and 16-3-107, reasonable notice of these 
proceedings has been given to all required landowners.

5.         The 
elements of a prescriptive easement in the public as well as county control and 
maintenance of the Barnum Mountain Road required by W.S. 24-1-101 have been 
established by the evidence presented herein.

6.         The 
road right of way described herein shall be a Sixty-Six Foot (66') right of way, 
being Thirty-Three Feet (33') on either side of the centerline of the road as 
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

DATED this 19th day of January, 1993. BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS JOHNSON COUNTY, WYOMING

[¶13]   According to the Resolution, 
Johnson County established the three miles from Freeman Draw to the west edge of 
the Bar C or BLM access road as a county road. The findings of fact and 
conclusions of law state a prescriptive easement existed in the public with 
respect to the "Barnum Mountain Road." The affected landowners filed a motion 
for clarification in which they requested Johnson County to amend the findings 
of fact and conclusions of law to state the third segment, the ten-miles of 
unpaved road west of the Bar C Access Road, had not been established as a county 
road. A hearing was held to address the motion for clarification. At the close 
of that hearing, the commissioners indicated they would not amend their findings 
or the resolution in any respect.

[¶14]   The landowners appealed to the 
district court, which affirmed the action of Johnson County. This appeal comes 
from the order affirming Johnson County entered in the district 
court.

[¶15]   Analysis of the record in this case 
discloses that, as between the landowners other than the estate of Curtis T. 
Taylor and Johnson County, the real issue is whether Johnson County can declare 
a prescriptive easement in the public. Johnson County did not purport to 
establish the Barnum Mountain Road as a county road beyond the west edge of the 
Bar C Access Road. The relief sought by those landowners is very similar to what 
might be achieved in a quiet title action to remove the burden of an unlawfully 
recorded interest from their titles. With respect to the estate of Curtis T. 
Taylor, the issue is whether Johnson County should accept as a gift a road it 
has acquired by prescription and has established under that 
doctrine.

[¶16]   While we do not understand Johnson 
County purported to establish a county road under the doctrine of prescription 
or adverse possession beyond the west edge of the Bar C Access Road, the parties 
address that issue in the context of what is required to establish a county road 
by prescription. Clearly, Johnson County needed to follow the substantive and 
procedural requirements in WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101. The initial action in such a 
proceeding is the filing of a plat and accurate survey in accordance with the 
terms and provisions of WYO. STAT. § 24-3-109. We have discussed the requirement 
of filing a plat and accurate survey in accordance with WYO. STAT. § 24-3-109. 
Rocky Mountain Sheep Co. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Carbon County, 73 Wyo. 11, 
269 P.2d 314 (1954). There is no dispute that there was no plat and survey of 
this road by the county surveyor. It seems evident the statutory requirements 
were not complied with even without addressing the concern of the landowners 
that a different plat of the road was used for purposes of the resolution than 
was invoked at the hearing.

[¶17]   A comparison of the conclusions of 
law by Johnson County with Resolution No. 133 discloses there is no detailed 
description of the Barnum Mountain Road in the conclusions of law, although it 
is clearly delineated and limited in Resolution No. 133. In other significant 
respects, these two documents are substantially identical.

[¶18]   The confusion of the landowners 
with respect to the action of Johnson County is understandable. The road 
commencing at Freeman Draw and going west to the Bar C Access Road is the 
three-mile, paved portion of the road known locally as the Barnum Road. It is 
distinguishable from the ten-mile portion of the Barnum Mountain Road from Bar C 
Access Road going west to the Washakie County line. At the hearing on the 
Appellants' motion for clarification (filed by the landowners) held on February 
17, 1993, the Johnson County Commissioners articulated the fact they intended to 
acquire by prescription only the three-mile portion from Freeman Draw to the Bar 
C Access Road. The pertinent testimony read as follows:

MR. KIRVEN: [B]ut I understand that the vote of the 
Board on that day was to establish a county road by prescription from Freeman 
Draw to the Bar-C Road.

COMMISSIONER SHUMAN: Right.

MR. KIRVEN: That intent is not clear in the 
resolution that was adopted. In fact, Mr. Goddard sent a letter following that 
in which he said that you had done something different. He said that you had 
established a county road from Freeman Draw to the Washakie County line. Now, 
those are two separate and distinct positions.

COMMISSIONER RHODES: As I wrote in my letter, we did not intend to do that. (Emphasis 
added.)

[¶19]   The next requirement found in the 
statute is that of furnishing notice both by publication and by mailing, through 
either registered or certified mail, to all persons owning lands or claiming any 
interest in any lands over or across which the proposed road is to be created. 
The record is uncontroverted that A. Louis Steplock and Deborah G. Steplock, who 
are landowners entitled to mailed notice under the statute, received no mailed 
notice of the hearing. In fact, they are not parties to the proceedings but, in 
the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirements of the statute, there 
is no way this road could have been established across lands they owned or in 
which they had an interest.

[¶20]   Assuming the procedural 
requirements of the statute had been satisfied, Johnson County still encounters 
substantive requirements relating to the establishment of a road by 
prescription. The substantive requirement is incorporated in the statute by 
alluding to the common-law doctrines of adverse possession or prescription. This 
feature was added to the statute in 1967 by express grant of authority to 
counties to establish such roads. In expressly referring to the common-law 
doctrines, the statute incorporates the prior decisions of this court. As early 
as 1910, we said:

[W]e are of the opinion that the only reasonable rule 
* * * is * * * that to establish a prescriptive right * * * there should be 
shown, in addition to the use of a road by the public, the assumption of control 
and jurisdiction over it by the board of county commissioners for the statutory 
period of limitation.

Bd. of Comm'rs of Sheridan 
County v. Patrick, 18 Wyo. 130, 144, 107 P. 748, 750 
(1910).

This rule has been followed 
consistently in Wyoming. Nixon v. Edwards, 72 Wyo. 274, 264 P.2d 287 (1953); Big 
Horn County Comm'rs v. Hinckley, 593 P.2d 573 (Wyo. 1979). 

[¶21]   Use by the public, coupled with 
maintenance by the county, gives rise to the right to establish a county road by 
prescription pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101. The road is not established, 
however, until the county commissioners formalize their actions in accordance 
with the statute. For example, we have held prescriptive use is not sufficient 
to establish a county road and that this must be established by legal authority. 
Nixon; Rocky Mountain Sheep Co. It is clear the statute, as well as the cases, 
demands an action to take property from private owners without compensation must 
be accomplished with strict adherence to the statutory requirements for the 
proceeding. Johnson County did not identify the location of the Barnum Mountain 
Road in a way that would satisfy the statutory requirements. The duty of the 
commission was articulated in Rocky Mountain Sheep Co., 269 P.2d at 
319:

So, also, if a board of county commissioners relies 
upon the county's having obtained prescriptive title to lands within a right of 
way, or any part thereof, in order to avoid the payment of damage for their 
taking, the inception of such prescriptive title must be evidenced by more 
formal acts than the user of the road by the public or by the county's 
construction and maintenance of the road because, in order to be empowered to 
acquire such prescriptive title, the records of the county must show not only 
the survey plat of the road but also the proceedings of the board in relation to 
the road's location, establishment or alteration, thus making manifest the 
county's purpose to acquire the lands involved.

[¶22]   Even assuming these requirements 
had been complied with, we still find Johnson County, in formalizing the result 
of the proceeding, described County Road No. 241 as commencing at Freeman Draw 
and ending at the west edge of the Bar C Access Road. In reporting the findings 
of fact and conclusions of law, the Johnson County Commissioners never did 
purport to establish a county road beyond the west edge of the Bar C Access 
Road. As to the balance of the road, there is simply a declaration of a 
prescriptive easement in the public together with an assertion of county 
maintenance. We hold, in the relevant documents, Johnson County did not 
establish a county road beyond the west edge of the Bar C Access 
Road.

[¶23]   Had they purported to do so, it is 
clear the Commissioners did not describe the Barnum Mountain Road in a way that 
would manifest the County's purpose to acquire it by prescription. See Rocky 
Mountain Sheep Co. Furthermore, adequate notice was not afforded to all of the 
landowners pursuant to the statute. There is a serious question as to the 
adequacy of the plat and survey filed in connection with the proceedings and, 
finally, the width ascribed to the road beyond the west edge of the Bar C Access 
Road clearly goes beyond that permitted under WYO. STAT. § 24-1-101(d), which 
significantly limits acquisition to "that portion of county highways * * * which 
was actually constructed or substantially maintained by the county and traveled 
and used by the general public for a period of ten years or longer." The 
evidence is clear this road was a trail and was not passable driving a vehicle 
which was not a four-wheel drive unless it had been graded prior to travel. 
There was no evidence that would support the claim of a road sixty-six feet in 
width.

[¶24]   We have addressed both cases, No. 
93-270 and 93-271, and considered them as being consolidated for the purposes of 
our decision. With respect to case No. 93-271, we find no merit in the Estate of 
Taylor's separate contention that the Commissioners' refusal to accept a gift of 
the right-of-way of the three-mile Barnum Road portion was arbitrary, 
capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The three-mile portion of the road known 
as the Barnum Road has been established pursuant to the doctrine of prescription 
as a county road. It would not be appropriate for Johnson County to accept a 
gift of an interest it had acquired by prescription. Our understanding of the 
record is that the interest of the Estate of Taylor relates only to the portion 
of the road that was successfully established as a county road by the doctrine 
of prescription and does not reach to any part of the Barnum Mountain Road, 
which we have held was not established by prescription. 

[¶25]   We perceive no merit in the 
contention of the landowners that they were denied due process because their 
right to voir dire the Board of County Commissioners was limited. The record 
discloses the hearing examiner's voir dire was more than adequate, and all the 
Commissioners articulated their willingness to hear the evidence presented with 
an open mind. We do not identify any specific claim of error on the part of the 
landowners, but simply a contention they had the right to voir dire. In that 
regard, their position is not consistent with what this court said in Mendicino 
v. Whitchurch, 565 P.2d 460 (Wyo. 1977). We do not find any error in the claim 
that the landowners were deprived of voir dire.

[¶26]   We reverse this case and remand it 
with direction to the district court to reverse and vacate the findings of fact 
and conclusions of law relating to the ten-mile portion of County Road 241 
running west from the Bar C Access Road to the Washakie County border. The 
district court should also reverse any intimation in the resolution or the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law that articulates a prescriptive easement 
in the public over the Barnum Mountain Road.

FOOTNOTES

1 In Case No. 93-270, the private 
landowners who appealed are Harry A. Steplock, Charles C. Willis, Karen K. 
Willis, Garvin Taylor, August Chabot, Julia Chabot, May Chabot, and Christie 
Walker.

In Case No. 
93-271, the appeal is taken by Nicki Taylor, the Executrix of the Estate of 
Curtis T. Taylor, Deceased.

2 The BLM plat and survey maintained an 
accuracy of two to five meters or six to sixteen feet as to the location of the 
Barnum Mountain Road, while Johnson County subdivision regulations require plats 
to be surveyed with an accuracy showing lengths to the hundredths of a foot. 
However, the dispute over accuracy suggests the BLM survey may well be 
appropriate for a survey of undeveloped land to be taken for a road; whereas, it 
would not be accurate for a plat and survey of a city block or for lots in a 
proposed subdivision. The dispute over survey accuracy in this case thus may be 
a futile comparison of "applies to oranges."