Opinion ID: 2594962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Laches and Waiver

Text: The State also advances the doctrines of laches and waiver. In an interesting twist on laches, the State argues the Districts' failure to challenge the Department's interpretation of § 21-13-102 for the years 1984 through 1990 amounts to an unreasonable delay. Relying on the same circumstances, the State argues the Districts' have also waived their claims. The defense of laches `is a form of equitable estoppel based on a[n] unreasonable delay by a party in asserting a right.' Goshen Irr. Dist. v. State Bd. of Control, 926 P.2d 943, 949 (Wyo.1996) (quoting Squaw Mountain Cattle Co. v. Bowen, 804 P.2d 1292, 1297 (Wyo.1991)). Laches does not depend on the passage of time alone; the plaintiff must be chargeable with lack of diligence in failing to proceed more promptly. Id. In addition, unless the delay has worked an injustice, prejudice or disadvantage to the defendant, it is not of itself laches. Miller v. Stovall, 717 P.2d 798, 807 (Wyo.1986); Murphy v. Stevens, 645 P.2d 82, 91 (Wyo.1982); Hartnett v. Jones, 629 P.2d 1357, 1364 (Wyo.1981). The State's reliance on laches is misplaced. We have written that [g]overnments and their agencies are generally not barred by laches when enforcing a public or governmental right. Big Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Comm'n, 715 P.2d 557, 561 (Wyo.1986). In addition, we find little evidence of injustice, prejudice, or disadvantage to the defendants. We conclude laches does not preclude the present action. We likewise reject the State's waiver claim because there is no indication that the Districts waived their claims for the fiscal years in question. We can find no intentional relinquishment of a known right... manifest[ed] in some unequivocal manner. In re Wright, 983 P.2d 1227, 1231 (Wyo.1999). The State's contention is more akin to an equitable estoppel. However, [e]quitable estoppel should not be invoked against a government or public agency functioning in its governmental capacity, except in rare and unusual circumstances.... Big Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Comm'n, 715 P.2d at 560; State Highway Comm'n v. Sheridan-Johnson Rural Electrification Ass'n, 784 P.2d 588, 592 (Wyo.1989). We find no such circumstances here.