Title: ANNE WHITE V. DAN ALLEN and MALINDA ALLEN

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ANNE WHITE V. DAN ALLEN and MALINDA ALLEN2005 WY 72115 P.3d 8Case Number: No. 04-155Decided: 07/06/2005
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
 
 
ANNE 
WHITE,   

Appellant 
(Defendant),    

 
 
v.          

 
 
DAN 
ALLEN and MALINDA ALLEN,        

Appellees 
(Plaintiffs)

 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal from theDistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

            
Pro 
se. 

 
 
Representing 
Appellees:

            
Don 
W. Riske of Riske & Salisbury, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]       Pro se 
appellant Anne White appeals from a district court decision finding 
appellees Dan and Malinda Allen (the Allens) could use cattle guards instead of 
gates on their access easement across Ms. White's property.  We affirm.  

 
 
 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]       The issues 
presented by the parties are as follows:

 
 
              I.  
Whether, as a matter 
of law, the word "control" in the Allen's easement allows
              
the owner of the Allen parcel to declare the right an "open way," based upon 
a 
             
               
               finding of fact that they "control" the entire 
road.

 
 
 II. 
Whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff's use of 
cattle guards in lieu of
              
  gates do[es] not materially increase the burden on the servient 
estate.

 
 
            
III.  
Whether the 
servient estate should be allowed to seek a trespass action against 
the
            
              dominant estate for misuse of the servitude, in tort, and have a 
jury trial.

 
 
            

FACTS 

 
 
[¶3]       This is the 
second appeal of this particular case to this Court.  White v. Allen, 2003 WY 39, 65 P.3d 395 (Wyo. 2003).  Ms. White and 
the Allens own adjacent properties in rural LaramieCounty.  Ms. White grazes approximately twenty 
head of cattle on her forty-acre parcel.  
The Allens have an access easement across Ms. White's property.  In June 2000, the Allens installed 
cattle guards at each end of their access easement.  Ms. White was concerned about her cattle 
crossing the cattle guards; consequently, she installed wire gates across the 
cattle guards and insisted that they be closed at all times.  The Allens found it to be inconvenient 
and unsafe to open and close the gates each time they traveled the 
easement.  

 
 
[¶4]       The Allens 
filed an action in the district court seeking a declaration concerning whether 
they could place cattle guards across their easement in lieu of the gates.  The district court entered summary 
judgment in favor of the Allens.   
White, ¶6.  The 
district court ruled, in accordance with Van Raden v. Harper,  891 P.2d 78, 79 (Wyo. 1995) that, as 
a matter of law, the Allens' use of cattle guards in place of gates did not 
materially increase the burden on Ms. White's servient estate and that Ms. White 
did not "have the right to insist upon the usage of gates in addition to or in 
lieu of cattle guards."  

 
 
[¶5]       Ms. White 
appealed the district court's decision, and we reversed and remanded for a 
trial.  White, ¶18.  We overruled Van Raden, and its 
progeny to the extent they stood for the proposition that, as a matter of 
law, cattle guards may be substituted for gates and do not place an unreasonable 
burden upon the servient estate.  
White, ¶¶ 11-12.  This 
Court ruled, instead, that the determination of whether a dominant easement 
owner may place cattle guards on his easement in place of gates is a question of 
fact which must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  White, ¶12.  Consequently, we remanded the case to 
the district court to determine "[w]hether such gates are reasonably necessary 
to the servient estate, or constitute an unreasonable inconvenience to the 
dominant estate[.]"  White, 
¶16.  

 
 
[¶6]       On remand, 
the district court held a bench trial.  
At the conclusion of the trial, it issued its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and order pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 52.  The district court found the Allens' use 
of cattle guards instead of gates did not materially increase the burden on Ms. 
White's servient estate and permanently restrained Ms. White from placing gates 
on the easement.  Ms. White filed a 
timely notice of appeal.  

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW           

 

[¶7]       We apply 
the following standard to review a decision rendered by the district court after 
a bench trial:

 
 
                      
"The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review 
afforded  
                      
a jury verdict.  While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate 
court
                      may examine all of the properly 
admissible evidence in the record.  
Due regard is 

                      given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the 

                      witnesses, and our review 
does not entail re-weighing disputed evidence.  
                      
Findings of fact will not be set aside 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  
A 
finding 
                      
is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the 
reviewing
                      
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that 
a 
           
              
                          mistake has been committed."

  

 
 

Harber 
v. Jensen, 2004 
WY 104, ¶7, 97 P.3d 57, ¶7 (Wyo. 2004) quoting, Life Care Centers of America, 
Inc. v. Dexter, 2003 WY 38, ¶7, 65 P.3d 385, ¶7 (Wyo. 2003)  See also, Powder River Ranch, 
Inc. v. Michelena, 2005 WY 1, ¶8, 103 P.3d 876, ¶8 (Wyo. 2005). 

  

                     
"[W]e assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give 
that
                     
party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from 
it.
                     
We do not substitute ourselves for the trial court as a finder of facts; 
instead, we 

                     
defer to those findings 
unless they are unsupported by the record or erroneous as 

     
               
                              a matter of 
law."

 

Life 
Care Centers, 
¶7 (citation omitted).  The district 
court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  Powder River Ranch, Inc., ¶8; 
Double Eagle Petroleum & Mining Corp. v. Questar Exploration & 
Production Co., 2003 WY 139, ¶6, 78 P.3d 679, ¶6 (Wyo. 
2003).

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
 
 
            
A.         
Easement Language

 
 
[¶8]       The 
relevant language of the Allens' access easement granted the dominant owner the 
right to "construct, use, control, maintain, improve and repair a road" over the 
servient estate.  The district court 
interpreted the access language as follows:  

 
 
                  
1.    The inclusion of the word "control" in [t]he 
[e]asement supports the conclusion 
                  
that it was the intention of the grantor of [t]he [e]asement to give the owner 
of the 
                  
Allen Parcel the right to install cattle guards on the ends of [t]he [e]asement 
and to 
                  
insist that the right of passage represented by [t]he [e]asement b[e] an "[o]pen 
way 
 
            
                
              
              
                   of pass[age]" unimpeded by gates across [t]he 
[e]asement.

 
 
Ms. 
White claims that the district court erred by ruling that the term "control" in 
the easement document justifies the substitution of cattle guards for gates on 
the easement.  

 
 
[¶9]       Under the 
law of this case, the district court's interpretation of the "control" language 
was unnecessary.  We held in the 
original White decision that the easement language did not, as a matter 
of law, grant the dominant owners the right to install cattle guards in lieu of 
gates.  White, ¶¶11-12.  Instead, we ruled that "[w]hether such 
gates are reasonably necessary to the servient estate, or constitute an 
unreasonable inconvenience to the dominant estate, are questions of fact to be 
resolved by the fact finder in the light of all the evidence that may be 
presented by the parties."  
White, ¶17.  
Consequently, the district court's decision on the factual issue of the 
reasonableness of cattle guards versus gates was dispositive.  We, therefore, turn directly to that 
issue. 

 
 
 

            
B.         
 Reasonableness of Dominant Owner's 
Use of the Easement

 
 
[¶10]     The district court 
ruled: "[The Allens] use of cattle guards in lieu of gates does not materially 
increase the burden on the servient estate held by [Ms. White], however, opening 
and closing two different gates each time one enters or leaves the dominant 
estate is quite burdensome and deprives [the Allens] of the essential use of 
their easement."  In support of this 
ruling, the district court made extensive and detailed findings of fact.  The record reveals that that district 
court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and were not clearly 
erroneous.  

 
 
[¶11]     Over the years, the 
parties had disagreed about whether or not the gates should be closed. Ms. White 
insisted that the gates be closed to prevent her cattle from escaping.  She testified that she was subject to 
incarceration if her cattle escaped to a neighboring subdivision because a 
restraining order in another matter prohibited her from allowing her cattle to 
graze on the subdivision lands. 

 
 
[¶12]     The evidence does not 
support Ms. White's claim that the cattle guards materially increased the burden 
on her servient estate.  During 
periods when the gates were not closed, Ms. White's cattle did not routinely 
escape over cattle guards.  When Ms. 
White's cattle did escape, it was through the inadequate fences surrounding her 
property, rather than across the cattle guards.  In fact, James Waggoner, Ph.D., an 
associate professor of animal behavior at the University of Wyoming, testified that, in his opinion, 
the cattle guards were the strongest part of Ms. White's fencing system.  

 
 
[¶13]     We turn now to the 
other side of the equation  the inconvenience of the gates to the Allens' 
dominant estate.  The record reveals 
that, when the gates were closed, the process of traversing the easement was 
quite unwieldly.  In order to reach 
their property, the Allens were required to stop their vehicle at the first 
cattle guard, walk across the cattle guard, open the gate, walk back across the 
cattle guard, reenter the vehicle, drive across the cattle guard, exit the 
vehicle again, and close the gate.  
The process then had to be repeated at the second cattle guard and 
gate.  Mrs. Allen testified that it 
was difficult and dangerous to walk across the cattle guard rungs, especially 
when they were wet or icy.  This was 
especially a problem for the Allens' invitees who were physically handicapped, 
including Mrs. Allen's parents.    

 
 
[¶14]     Furthermore, the Allens 
feared that the cattle would injure them or their invitees while they were 
opening and closing the gates.  Dr. 
Waggoner testified that he had observed Ms. White's cattle, and she had an 
unusually high percentage of bulls in the herd, resulting in more fighting 
between the males during breeding season.  
Moreover, her cattle were horned and the horns had not been turned down, 
further increasing the danger represented by the cattle.  Dr. Waggoner testified that the fact 
that Ms. White's cattle were pets did not minimize the danger, and  that people are more likely to be 
injured by tame animals than wild animals because tame animals are used to being 
around people and are more inclined to approach them.  Thus, Ms. White 's insistence that the 
gates be opened and closed each time the Allens traveled the easement created a 
danger of falling on the cattle guards and/or being injured by Ms. White's 
cattle.  

 
 
[¶15]     The Allens also 
presented evidence showing that the gates were inconvenient for delivery people, 
such as the propane delivery person and the United Parcel Services (UPS) 
driver.  In one instance, a delivery 
person actually hung a valuable item on the fence rather than go through the 
hassle of opening and closing the gates.  
A fireman and emergency medical technician also expressed concern that 
the gates would hinder the ability of emergency personnel to respond to a 
crisis.  

 
 

[¶16]     The inconvenience of 
opening and closing the gates each time the Allens traversed the easement was 
enhanced by Ms. White's inflexibility about the matter.  On one occasion, Ms. White called the 
deputy sheriff and arranged for a citation to be issued to Mrs. Allen, pursuant 
to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-9-202 (LexisNexis 2003), 
1 
for failing to close a gate.     

   

[¶17]     On this record, we must 
conclude that the district court did not err by ruling that:  1) the cattle guards did not materially 
increase the burden upon Appellant's servient estate; and 2) requiring the gates 
to be closed would be overly burdensome and would deprive the Allens of the 
essential use of their easement.

 
 
 
 
C.         
Counterclaim

 
 

[¶18]     Appellant claims that 
the district court erred by dismissing her counterclaim against the Allens.  She argues that she should have been 
allowed to pursue a tort claim for trespass based upon the Allens ' misuse of 
the easement.  In resolving this 
issue, we must review the procedural history of the counterclaims in this 
case.  

 
 
[¶19]     After the Allens filed 
their declaratory judgment action, Appellant filed an answer and 
counterclaim.  The original 
counterclaim stated that the cattle guards increased the burden upon the 
servient estate and that Appellant had been damaged by the Allens' failure to 
close the gates.  Appellant's 
pretrial memorandum stated that there was a pending issue of law as to whether a 
person who failed to close gates in violation of § 6-9-202 may be sued in tort 
for damages.  The district court's 
order on the pretrial conference confirmed that Appellant maintained a claim for 
a tortious wrong based upon the Allens' failure to close the gates.  The Allens filed a motion for summary 
judgment on their declaratory judgment claim and a motion to dismiss Appellant's 
counterclaim.  The district court 
subsequently entered summary judgment in favor of the Allens and dismissed 
Appellant's counterclaim, ruling, as a matter of law, that the cattle guards did 
not materially increase the burden upon Appellant's servient estate. 

 
 
[¶20]     As we stated earlier in 
this opinion, this Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the Allens 
and remanded for a trial on their declaratory judgment action.  With regard to Appellant's counterclaim, 
we stated: "White contends that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-9-202 (LexisNexis 2001) 
creates in her a right to file a tort action against the Allens under the 
circumstances presented here. . . .  
This argument is not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority 
and we decline to consider it further."  
White, ¶17 (citation omitted).  The effect of our ruling was that the 
district court's dismissal of the original counterclaim was affirmed.    

 
 
[¶21]     After the case was 
remanded for a trial, the district court ordered that the parties file any 
motions in a timely fashion.  
Appellant requested leave to amend her answer to state a counterclaim 
seeking damages from the Allens because they "exceeded their easement rights and 
interfered with the reasonable use of [Appellant's] servient property."   The district court entered an 
order denying Appellant's motion to amend her answer to assert a counterclaim, 
stating that the proposed amendment was, in all material respects, the same as 
the original counterclaim which had been dismissed by the district 
court.  On the day preceding 
the trial, Appellant again requested leave to assert a counterclaim.  She argued, in essence, that her 
proposed counterclaim was different than the original counterclaim.  The district court disagreed and held 
that "the dismissal of the counterclaim stands."  

 
 
[¶22]     We agree with the 
district court.  The original 
counterclaim was stated in almost identical terms as the proposed amended 
counterclaim.  While the original 
counterclaim had evolved to include an argument pertaining to § 6-9-202, there 
is no question that the dismissal of the original counterclaim and the 
subsequent affirmation of that decision by this Court finally resolved that 
matter.  Furthermore, even if 
Appellant had been allowed to proceed with her counterclaim, she ultimately 
would not have been successful.  The 
district court's findings that the Allens' use of cattle guards instead of gates 
did not materially increase the burden on her servient estate necessarily means 
that the Allens did not exceed their easement rights or interfere with 
Appellant's reasonable use of her servient property.

 
 
            

D.         
Costs and Attorney Fees

 
 
[¶23]     In their final issue, 
the Allens request that this Court award them their attorneys fees and costs 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05 because Appellant did not present any pertinent 
authority or cogent argument in her brief.  
Rule 10.05 states, in pertinent part:  "If the court certifies there was no 
reasonable cause for the appeal, a reasonable amount for attorneys' fees and 
damages to the appellee shall be fixed by the appellate court and taxed as part 
of the costs in the case."  We 
acknowledge that Appellant's pro se brief is somewhat 
unconventional.  Nevertheless, she 
does provide cogent argument and pertinent authority in support of her 
contentions.  We conclude, 
therefore, that this is not one of those rare circumstances where sanctions 
under W.R.A.P. 10.05 are appropriate.

 
 
[¶24]     
Affirmed.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

,Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 6-9-202 states:  

 
 
A 
person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven 
hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) if he opens and neglects to close a gate or 
replace bars in a fence which crosses a private road or a river, stream or 
ditch.