Opinion ID: 2461019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Private Road Statute

Text: [¶ 9] J & T argues Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101 (LexisNexis Supp. 2008) required that a private road directly connect the applicant's landlocked parcel to a public road and the district court violated the statute by condemning a private road which connected with a series of private easements to reach a public road. The gist of J & T's argument is that Mr. Gallagher should have joined, in the private road action, all of the owners of the land he traversed to reach a public road even though he already had private easements across their properties. [¶ 10] The relevant portion of § 24-9-101 [2] stated: (a) Any person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may file an application in writing with the board of county commissioners in the county where his land is located for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road. (Emphasis added). This Court applies the following principles when interpreting statutory language: Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Our paramount consideration is the legislature's intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Initially, we determine whether the statute is clear or ambiguous. A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute. In interpreting a statute, we will not ignore other statutory provisions pertaining to the same subject but will, instead, consider all such provisions in pari materia. Sorensen v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WY 101, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d 1233, 1237 (Wyo. 2010), quoting Horse Creek Cons. Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney General, 2009 WY 143, ¶ 14, 221 P.3d 306, 312 (Wyo.2009) (citations omitted). [¶ 11] Section 24-9-101(a) allows a person to apply for a private road if he has no outlet to, nor connection with, a public road. We have interpreted this language as allowing a private road application when the petitioner does not have permanent, unrestricted, legally enforceable access to his property. See, e.g., Voss v. Albany County Comm'rs, 2003 WY 94, 74 P.3d 714 (Wyo.2003) (holding that personal and/or restricted easements do not satisfy the statute's legally enforceable access requirement). On the other hand, if the applicant has legally enforceable access, even via a private easement, he is not landlocked and is not entitled to a private road. See id. [¶ 12] Section 24-9-101(a) sets out the requirements for a private road application and those requirements demonstrate that the legislature wanted to encourage landlocked property owners to obtain private easements, if possible, rather than apply for private roads. Subsection (ii) requires the applicant to include a specific statement as to why the land has no legally enforceable access; subsection (iii) requires a description of the applicant's efforts to purchase a legally enforceable access to a public road; and subsection (vi) requires a statement as to whether any actions of the applicant or any person with the consent and knowledge of the applicant, caused the applicant's land to lose or to not have any legally enforceable access. Bearing in mind the legislature's obvious preference for private negotiations, it does not follow that it would require a landowner to condemn a right of way across property over which he already has legally enforceable access or to join parties who had previously provided such access. [¶ 13] Section 24-9-101(a) states that the applicant can apply for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road. The plain meaning of lead in the context used here is to serve to bring a person to a place. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1281 (2002). Applying this definition, the statute clearly states that the private road must serve to bring a person to a public road. It does not state that the private road has to cover the entire distance from the applicant's land to the public way or terminate at a public road. When the legislature omits language from a statute, we consider the omission intentional. Office of State Lands and Inv. v. Mule Shoe Ranch, Inc., 2011 WY 68, ¶ 22, 252 P.3d 951, 957 (Wyo.2011), citing Stutzman v. Office of the Wyo. State Engineer, 2006 WY 30, ¶ 16, 130 P.3d 470, 475 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 14] Closs v. Schell, 2006 WY 95, 139 P.3d 435 (Wyo.2006) involved a private road that connected to a private easement rather than a public road. The Schells applied for a private road along an existing two track road across two different properties, the Closses' and Mr. Gronski's, to a public road. Prior to the initial hearing on the Schells' application, Mr. Gronski granted the Schells an easement across his property and was dismissed from the private road action. Although the issue of whether it was proper for a private road to terminate somewhere other than at a public road was not specifically raised, we did not indicate that there was anything wrong with the Schells using a private road and the Gronski easement to gain access to a public road. The decision indicates that once Mr. Gronski agreed to a private easement, it was appropriate to dismiss him from the action. Id., ¶¶ 3-6, 139 P.3d at 438-39. [¶ 15] We have long said that convenience and reason should prevail in the establishment of roads, and these policies are included within the private road statutes. See, e.g., Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 462 (Wyo.1995). The statutes are also intended to provide a readily available, economically affordable, and time efficient method to obtain a means of access to property. Martens v. Johnson County Board of Comm'rs, 954 P.2d 375, 380 (Wyo.1998). By interpreting the private road statutes to allow an applicant to use other means of legal access together with a private road to cure his access problem, we fulfill the policies of reason, convenience and economic affordability. Moreover, we avoid the unsatisfactory result that would arise if an applicant who had gone to the time and expense of securing private easements along part of his way then had to bring those same people into the private road condemnation action. The district court correctly interpreted § 24-9-101 as allowing the condemnation of a private road even though it did not connect directly with a public road and properly refused to require Mr. Gallagher to join the owners of land over which he already had easements. [3]