Opinion ID: 2639459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Substantial Evidence Regarding Assessed Damages

Text: [¶ 24] In the second two issues, appellant essentially argues that the Board was presented with insufficient evidence to render an appropriate determination on the assessment of damages upon establishment of the private road. In particular, appellant proffers that the viewers and appraisers improperly ignored damages to all of appellant's land and improperly determined the damages to appellant's land within the roadway corridor, both in contravention of those requirements set forth in Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 25] We have previously had occasion to address the issue of establishing damages as it relates to applications for a private road under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-9-101 et seq. In Lindt, at 463, we stated: The Lindts claim the damage award is improper. It is evident from the proceedings before the Board that the directions given the Board by the district court in its remand order were not observed or understood. Therefore, we remand to the district court with directions that the district court remand to the Board and the Board reassemble the viewers and appraisers, or if necessary a different body of viewers and appraisers, and those viewers and appraisers assess damages as follows: (1) determine the value of the entirety of the Lindts' affected land before the private road was established; then, (2) determine the value of the Lindts' remaining land after the private road is in place; (3) subtract the after value from the before value, which then equals the damages due the Lindts. Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves, 642 P.2d 423, 433 (Wyo.1982); and see generally Mettee v. Kemp, 236 Kan. 781, 696 P.2d 947, 949 (1985) (discussing Kansas statute which enumerates factors which may be considered in the beforeafter analysis). See also Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69, ¶¶ 32-44, 28 P.3d 838, ¶¶ 32-44 (Wyo.2001) and Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882, 888-89 (Wyo.2000). [¶ 26] Appellant claims that the viewers and appraisers improperly attempted to assess damages, only taking into account the damage to the land within the roadway corridor rather than taking into account the damages to the whole of appellant's property. At the hearing held on February 13, 2001, the viewers and appraisers specifically confirmed that they did consider diminution in the value of appellant's property outside the roadway corridor. However, they viewed appellant's property as range and meadowland and, therefore, determined that the property outside of the roadway would be unaffected in dollar value by the private roadway. [¶ 27] The viewers and appraisers correctly stated the before and after parameters for the assessment of damages expressed in Lindt v. Murray and explained that they applied them in their evaluation. Mr. Espy testified as follows: We just felt that it affected that corridor where the road was and not the property further in, because thewhen we reviewed it that day, basically it was rangeland and meadowland, and because we inquired and there was no subdivision plat on file. So we didn't feel that the property further in was affected valuewise. We just felt that the corridor was what was affected. When Mr. Espy was asked to explain his understanding of what Lindt v. Murray required of viewers and appraisers in making a damages assessment, he responded: Basically, take the value of the property that was affected as a whole, do the damage amount, and take the value of the property again. Basically, the difference is the damages. Mr. Espy then explained the means by which the viewers and appraisers determined the assessment of damages in this case: Well, when we did it, basically what we came up with wasit wassince basically we viewed it as rangeland and meadowland, we viewed that the property basically outside of the corridor would have been unaffected in dollar value before and after. And it was just because, like [counsel] just asked us, you know, it would have been different, you know, if there would have been, you know, existing plats out there, or houses. But since we just viewed it as rangeland, we didn't think that it made any difference in the value of the property outside the corridor before and after. We just viewed it as theright down the corridor were the only places that we saw that there were damages. ... We considered outside the corridor, but since we basically considered it as range or meadowland, basically it was range or meadowland before the proposed road and it would be range or meadowland after the proposed road. So we didn't view that there was, you know, substantialor basically hardly any change in value to that property before and after. [¶ 28] Upon our independent review of the record, we hold that the viewers and appraisers did consider appellant's property as a whole, but their conclusion was no damage would be caused to that property with the exception of damages sustained by the actual land taken for placement of the private road. As a result, we conclude that the viewers and appraisers complied with applicable law in making this assessment and that substantial evidence existed to support their conclusion. As indicated previously, at the time of viewing, appellant's property was zoned as ranch, agricultural, and mining property. [¶ 29] Appellant also asserts that the viewers and appraisers erred because they failed to take into consideration the highest and best use of appellant's property. Appellant posits that the viewers and appraisers should have utilized the valuation of its property assuming that it would be rezoned and subdivided. As mentioned previously, Mr. Gray testified about appellant's plans to rezone and subdivide its property and admitted that almost all the formal steps to complete this plan remained unsatisfied. Mr. Schnal testified that the rezoning and subdivision application of appellant was on hold for a multitude of reasons. Appellant's property also remained zoned as ranch, agricultural, and mining property. Therefore, substantial evidence exists to support the assessment of damages of the viewers and appraisers based on appellant's property being used as grazing and meadowland. [¶ 30] Appellant also contests the manner in which the viewers and appraisers estimated the damages incurred as a result of the placement of the private road. Specifically, appellant argues that no comparable property sales or market values were used by the viewers and appraisers in making their assessment and no factual basis was established for the $1.00 per running foot value used in their calculations. [¶ 31] The viewers and appraisers utilized their own expertise and experience in arriving at a value. The appointed viewers and appraisers had previously served in this capacity in other private road and similar proceedings. They had experience in banking, accounting, real estate sales, and ranching. Comparable sales in the same locality were unavailable. Thus, the viewers and appraisers utilized their independent knowledge of a similar transaction regarding the valuation of a private road easement in another location and made adjustments considering the difference in location and other factors. The viewers and appraisers also utilized their general knowledge of land values and the real estate market for similar property in the area. This rational and all-inclusive approach taken by the viewers and appraisers derived a fair and equitable assessment of damages. [¶ 32] We indicated in Carney v. Board of County Comm'rs of Sublette County, 757 P.2d 556, 561 (Wyo.1988), that appointed viewers and appraisers must be disinterested freeholders and electors of the county who are knowledgeable of the local conditions and will apply that knowledge and their common sense in making their determination. This is precisely what the viewers and appraisers did in this case. The record before us makes it apparent that the viewers and appraisers made the appropriate review utilizing the required before-after analysis to determine damages. In reviewing appeals from administrative bodies, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hence, we hold the Board's finding of damages is supported by substantial evidence.