Opinion ID: 221716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refuse to issue any building permits

Text: B. After written notice . . . and failing cure by owner within reasonable period of time, the City may complete any and all of the public improvements required by this contract by itself or by contracting with a third party to do the same. In the event the City elects to complete said improvements or contract with a third party to do so, the owners agree to pay any and all costs resulting therefrom upon demand by the City. The Remedies provided in this paragraph are in addition to any other remedies specifically provided for in this contract, or which the City might otherwise have at law or in equity, and are not a limitation upon the same. Id. at 51 (emphasis added). -3- In addition to the agreement with plaintiffs, the City entered into a similar agreement with the developer of a neighboring subdivision. This agreement required the developer to construct Trevett Lane and committed the City to securing partial reimbursement from other property owners. Between 2004 and 2006, in accordance with this agreement, the developer constructed Trevett Lane. Prior to construction, the City did not contact plaintiffs about Trevett Lane, either to request that they do the work themselves or to notify them that a third party had been contracted to do the work. After the project was completed, the Casper City Council sought contribution from plaintiffs for the cost of the street improvements, pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement. First, the City Council enacted a resolution—again, after the fact—that “ordered, demanded, approved, and authorized” the street improvements that had already been made. R., Vol. III at 616 (Resolution No. 06-306). With the resolution in hand, the City’s attorneys then sent plaintiffs a letter requiring payment for their pro rata share of the construction of Trevett Lane. The letter informed plaintiffs of the amount of their obligation and their duty to pay the assessed amounts in one lump sum or over a ten year period at eight percent interest. For example, the letter to Gasdek stated: Pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement for your subdivision, your real property is assessable for the pro rata share of the public improvement costs based upon the lineal footage of your property -4- which abuts Trevett Lane. In this regard, the assessment for all of your property for the street improvements is the total sum of $143,709.12. R., Vol. I at 125. The letter to Pater was identical, except that the sum demanded was $118,549.16. Id. at 122. A few weeks later, before plaintiffs responded to the letters and without further notice, the City Council passed another resolution finding the City’s assessment of costs was “fair and equitable” and “the proper method for the apportionment” of construction costs. Id. at 131–32 (Resolution No. 07-136). The City then recorded a “Notice of Apportionment and Assessment” (Notice of Assessment) with the County Clerk against each of plaintiffs’ properties. The Notices of Assessment provided: [T]he pro-rata share of the Trevett Lane public improvements apportioned and assessable to this real property is the total sum of [the parcel-specific assessment], said sum being due and owing to the City of Casper until paid in full. . . . UPON THE PAYMENT OF THE TOTAL SUM DUE THE CITY OF CASPER UNDER THIS NOTICE, THE CITY SHALL FILE IN THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING A RELEASE AND SATISFACTION SHOWING THAT ALL SUMS DUE AND OWING HEREUNDER HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. Id. at 134. Plaintiffs believed they did not owe the claimed sum under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement because the City had never made a written demand for the construction of Trevett Lane, as the Agreement required, until after the street had -5- already been built. They also claimed the Notices placed a cloud on their property title. Accordingly, they filed a complaint in state court asserting claims for declaratory judgment, a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of plaintiffs’ due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City removed the case to federal court, and made counterclaims alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. In response to cross motions for summary judgment, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims and remanded the remaining claims to state court.