Opinion ID: 2364766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the district court err in granting trespass damages to the Kerseys?

Text: [¶ 19] In the real property context, trespasses are invasions of the interest in the exclusive possession of land and in its physical condition. Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, 922 P.2d 850, 859 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts Ch. 7 [§§ 157-166] at 275 (1965)); see also Skane v. Star Valley Ranch Ass'n, 826 P.2d 266, 268-69 (Wyo.1992) (gist of action is injury to possession). The district court concluded in the order entered after the bench trial in the instant case that the Bellises had committed a trespass against the Kerseys. An unreported hearing on trespass damages took place some months later, with the district court eventually ordering the Bellises to pay to the Kerseys $1,300.00 as actual damages for the interruption in Kerseys' fence construction, and $1,500.00 as nominal damages and to aid them in the cost of erecting a boundary fence. [¶ 20] Wyoming follows the general rule that at least nominal damages are available where an actionable trespass has occurred. Harmony Ditch Co. v. Sweeney, 31 Wyo. 1, 7, 222 P. 577, 579 (1924); see also Brown v. Johnston, 2004 WY 17, ¶ 36, 85 P.3d 422, 432 (Wyo.2004) (nominal damages awarded where cause of action for a legal wrong is established even though no proof of actual damages); and State ex rel. Willis v. Larson, 539 P.2d 352, 355 (Wyo.1975) (nominal damages awarded where cause of action for a legal wrong is established even though no proof of actual damages). For their proposition that both nominal damages and actual damages are recoverable, the Kerseys rely upon Sagebrush Development, Inc. v. Moehrke, 604 P.2d 198, 202-03 (Wyo.1979). [¶ 21] We find the Kerseys' reliance upon Sagebrush Development to be misplaced. A close reading of that case suggests that it adheres to the general rule that nominal damages are awarded when actual damages are not proven, are not susceptible to proof, or do not exist. Id. at 202. In Sagebrush Development, both nominal damages and actual damages were approved because of successive breaches of a divisible contract, which is not the circumstance currently before the Court. Id. at 203. See 75 Am.Jur.2d Trespass § 112 (2007) (nominal damages available in the absence of proven or actual damages); and 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 15 (2003) (nominal damages recoverable where no actual damage results or is proved). [¶ 22] Beyond this discussion is the problematic fact that, in the final order entered after the damages hearing, the district court found $1,300.00 proven as actual damages, but then found the Kerseys to be entitled to $1,500.00 from the Bellises as nominal damages and to aid them in the cost of erecting a boundary fence. Without the aid of a hearing transcript, and without a more detailed finding, this Court is unable to determine what portion of the latter award is meant to be nominal damages and what portion is meant to help reimburse the Kerseys for the construction of a boundary fence. Furthermore, although Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-28-106 (LexisNexis 2009) provides for a civil action in the event that a neighboring landowner refuses to pay one-half the cost of a partition fence, that cause of action was not raised in this case, and there is no evidence before the Court that the Bellises have refused to pay such amount, if demanded. We conclude that the award of $1,500.00 must be reversed. On the other hand, the award of $1,300.00 in actual damages is affirmed because there is evidence to support it. [5] See, e.g., Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7, 106 P.3d 887, 891 (Wyo.2005).