Opinion ID: 2514752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Propriety of Summary Judgment in Favor of the City of Cheyenne

Text: [¶19] Coonts' appellate brief lacks a cohesive framework. She throws out points of error seemingly at random. We've decided the best approach is to treat her points as they arise chronologically. [¶20] The undisputed evidence is that Coonts' building was completely destroyed by the fire of December 27, 2004. There was evidence from both CBO Wilson and Clary supporting this finding. Coonts herself testified that she personally did not know what condition the building was in structurally, nor did she ever seek an independent evaluation. To the extent Coonts argues her building did not need to be razed, her argument is rejected. [¶21] Coonts was aware, by January 6, 2005, at the latest, of the need to demolish her building when she was informed of the building's condition by CBO Wilson at a property owners meeting. Around the same time, the owner of the Wyoming Home building arranged for the demolition of her building by Spiegelberg. Coonts, however, did not contact Spiegelberg until January 20, 2005. She received Spiegelberg's bid on January 26. She did not accept Speigelberg's bid, but instead sought a second bid from another company. She received the second bid from S&S on January 28. Thus, on January 28, she had two bids in hand, but had accepted neither. [¶22] CBO Wilson, obviously feeling like he needed to move things along, issued an official condemnation Notice and Order on January 28. Coonts argues there were several deficiencies with this first order. Be that as it may, the first order was superseded by the emergency order and is therefore irrelevant to our discussion. [¶23] On February 3, 2005, CBO Wilson ordered the emergency demolition of the building and took all appropriate action as required by the IPMC, including sending a new Notice and Order to Coonts. Coonts strongly contends the condition of her building did not warrant emergency demolition. The IPMC leaves the decision solely to the discretion of the code official, in this case CBO Wilson. CBO Wilson testified in his deposition that, between January 28 and February 3, the building condition deteriorated to the point that it had become an imminent danger. Coonts submitted no evidence to the contrary. [3] [¶24] Coonts takes issue with the process followed in hiring Spiegelberg. She contends the City was required to follow the mandates of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-1-113, Contracts for Public Improvements. By its very title, it does not apply to the instant situation. Indeed, if further confirmation is needed, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-1-113(a) (LexisNexis 2007) expressly excludes contracts for emergency work from its coverage. [¶25] The IPMC, which did govern the situation, mandated CBO Wilson take immediate action to eliminate the imminent danger posed by the deteriorating condition of Coonts' building. Spiegelberg was already mobilized on site because of its work on the Wyoming Home building, allowing for immediate response to CBO Wilson's safety concerns. Under the circumstances, CBO Wilson's action in hiring Spiegelberg to undertake the demolition and removal of Coonts' building was reasonable. [¶26] Coonts next argues the City should never have paid Spiegelberg's invoice. She alleges Spiegelberg did not properly complete the job. For support, she relies on one photograph taken January 5, 2006, and several other photographs, as well as a video, taken November 23, 2006. Needless to say, this photographic and video evidence is not indicative of the condition of the property on February 28, 2005, when Spiegelberg completed its work at the building site. There is no evidence Spiegelberg performed in anything other than a competent, workmanlike manner. Instead, the specific evidence from both Clary and CBO Wilson is that Spiegelberg completed its work in accordance with the conditions of the contract. [¶27] Coonts also complains the amount charged by Spiegelberg was excessive. Her point of comparison is Spiegelberg's initial bid of $78,750.00 to $81,575.00. Coonts ignores, however, the contingencies contained in the bid. Coonts complains Spiegelberg's invoice was inadequate for a meaningful decision to be made as to the appropriateness of the extra charges. Spiegelberg's invoice, however, lists separate charges for demolition, the building permit, shoring, saw cutting, crane services and ten percent profit. We find nothing untoward in Spiegelberg's billing. The invoice is adequate to sustain Spiegelberg's final charge and justify the City's payment thereof. [4] [¶28] Coonts' attack moves on to the lien. She claims the City never properly perfected a lien against her property because it did not follow the procedures required to perfect a mechanics lien as set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-1-101 through 29-8-109. Title 29, however, defines a lien claimant as any person who claims a lien under this title pursuant to a contract for improvement of property entered into by an owner of property. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-201(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 2007). Title 29 therefore does not apply to the instant situation, where it was the City that entered into the contract, not the owner. [¶29] We return, therefore, to the IPMC. The IPMC requires the City to pay emergency demolition costs and creates an automatic lien against Coonts' property for the recovery of such costs  the cost of such demolition and removal shall be charged against the real estate upon which the structure is located and shall be a lien upon such real estate. IPMC 110.3. By the terms of the IPMC, this lien came into existence, and was effective as between the City and Coonts, at the time the City paid Spiegelberg. No filing was necessary to validate the lien as between the city and Coonts. The lien existed by ordinance and was properly judicially foreclosed.