Opinion ID: 2627651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act

Text: [¶ 10] Our starting place for determining jurisdiction is the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-37-101 through 1-37-115 (LexisNexis 2007). Section 1-37-102 establishes the scope of the act: Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. Section 1-37-114 emphasizes the remedial purposes of the act: The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is remedial. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to legal relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered. [¶ 11] The Declaratory Judgments Act does not, however, extend the jurisdiction of the courts. Reiman, 838 P.2d at 1185-86. Section 1-37-103 defines the rights which may be subject to declaration under the act and the parties who may seek a declaration of their rights: Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations. See also , Barber v. City of Douglas, 931 P.2d 948, 951 (Wyo. 1997). Thus, under the relevant statutes, in order for a court to have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, the right to be declared must fall within the scope of the act and the plaintiff must be an interested person. Cox , ¶ 8, 79 P.3d at 505. The requirement of an interest` captures the basic doctrine that there must be a justiciable controversy before relief will be granted. Barber v. City of Douglas , 931 P.2d 948, 951 (Wyo.1997). Generically, a justiciable controversy is defined as a controversy fit for judicial resolution. Reiman Corp. v. City or Cheyenne , 838 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Wyo.1992). Many doctrines are encompassed within the concept of justiciability including standing, ripeness, and mootness. Id . Id., ¶ 9, 79 P.3d at 505. [¶ 12] In Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974), we adopted a four-part test for determining whether a party presents a justiciable controversy to maintain a declaratory judgment action in Wyoming. [2] 1. The parties have existing and genuine, as distinguished from theoretical, rights or interests. 2. The controversy must be one upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate, as distinguished from a debate or argument evoking a purely political, administrative, philosophical or academic conclusion. 3. It must be a controversy the judicial determination of which will have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the rights, status or other legal relationships of one or more of the real parties in interest, or, wanting these qualities to be of such great and overriding public moment as to constitute the legal equivalent of all of them. 4. The proceedings must be genuinely adversary in character and not a mere disputation, but advanced with sufficient militancy to engender a thorough research and analysis of the major issues. Cox, ¶ 10, 79 P.3d at 505, quoting Reiman, 838 P.2d at 1186. [¶ 13] Our case law provides guidance on applying these factors and establishes the parameters of what constitutes a justiciable claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act. In White v. Board of Land Comm'rs, 595 P.2d 76, 79 (Wyo. 1979), we held the Declaratory Judgments Act gives the courts no power to determine future rights or anticipated disputes or controversies. Instead, the plaintiffs must present an existing and genuine controversy to the court in order for it to have jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment. Id . When the Board of Land Commissioners had previously issued a decision giving state land lessees (the Whites) the right to meet the highest bid and acquire state land slated for public auction by the Board and that agency decision was not appealed, this Court held the Board could not seek a judicial decision on the validity of its action. We concluded the Board`s complaint seeking a declaratory judgment was simply a request for legal advice and opinion as to the effect of the agency`s action because there was no guarantee that the Whites would exercise their right to meet the highest bid after the auction. Id. at 80. [¶ 14] In contrast, Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo. 1982), established that a justiciable controversy did exist where the oil and gas producers challenged rules and regulations promulgated by the Environmental Quality Council for the disposal of water from oil production activities as being in excess of its statutory powers. Id. at 1166-69. Although the plaintiffs apparently had not applied for a permit to dispose of water from their oil production activities when they initiated their declaratory judgment action, the rules required immediate and present action by the plaintiffs. We concluded the plaintiffs had standing because a judicial ruling on the issues presented would effectively terminate a controversy. Id. [¶ 15] The distinction between Rocky Mountain and White is instructive. The Rocky Mountain plaintiffs affirmatively alleged that they were required to seek permits under the challenged regulations and, consequently, would certainly be affected by the agency action in the very near future. However, there was no such certainty that an actual controversy would develop in White . See also , Brimmer, 521 P.2d 574 (ruling that the court had jurisdiction to render a declaration as to the ability of incumbent state senators to run for the office of governor, even though they had not yet filed as candidates, because they alleged their intent to do so). [¶ 16] Budd v. Bishop, 543 P.2d 368 (Wyo. 1975) did not explicitly apply the justiciable controversy factors; however, that case provides a useful discussion of the requirements for alleging an affected interest for a declaratory judgment in the context of water law. Budd challenged the constitutionality of the Surplus Water Law and the State Engineer`s interpretation and application of the law. This Court concluded that Budd could not maintain his challenge because he did not assert that he owned any rights affected by the statute. [A] party who asserts the violation of a constitutional provision by a legislative enactment must show an adverse effect upon his rights. No one is entitled to present a claim that a particular statute is unconstitutional as to other persons or classes of persons, but he must demonstrate injury to his own rights. Id. at 371-72 (citations omitted). [¶ 17] Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hallmark Ins. Co., 561 P.2d 706 (Wyo. 1977), provides another example of the failure of a plaintiff to allege an impact on its interests sufficient to sustain a declaratory judgment action. In that case, the parties each issued liability insurance for activities on rodeo grounds. Id. at 707. Mountain West sought a declaration as to the rights and liabilities of the parties for an accident on the grounds. It did not, however, place its insurance policy in the record. This Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment under the Declaratory Judgments Act because, in the absence of the policy being made part of the record, Mountain West`s rights were theoretical. Id. at 711-12. [A] controversy must be demonstrated in which the parties have a real as distinguished from a theoretical concern. Id. at 709. [¶ 18] Similarly, this Court ruled long ago in Anderson v. Wyo. Dev. Co., 154 P.2d 318, 341-42 (Wyo. 1944), that in order for a declaratory judgment to lie, it must be based upon an actual and existing disagreement. This court, even under the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, should not undertake to decide or declare the rights or status of parties upon a state of facts which is future, contingent, and uncertain. Id. at 341 (quoting Tanner v. Boynton Lumber Co., 129 A. 617, 619 (N.J. Eq. 85, 1925)). [¶ 19] In addition, declaratory judgment is not available in administrative cases when the question should initially be decided by the agency. An agency created by the legislature to perform a specific function is considered to have special expertise. Rissler & McMurry Co. v. State , 917 P.2d 1157, 1160-61 (Wyo. 1996). Honoring the administrative process is especially important in cases requiring fact finding or application of discretion by the agency. See , Wyo. Dep't of Revenue v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2007 WY 21, ¶ 18, 150 P.3d 1216, 1223 (Wyo. 2007). This Court discussed the rationale behind this concept in Rocky Mountain, 645 P.2d at 1168 (citations omitted): Where the action would result in a prejudging of issues that should be decided in the first instance by an administrative body, it should not lie. This is because, if it be otherwise, all decisions by the several agencies could be bypassed, and the district court would be administering the activities of the executive branch of the government. [¶ 20] Applying this underlying principle, we ruled in Bonnie M. Quinn Revocable Trust v. SRW, Inc., 2004 WY 65, ¶¶ 6-11, 91 P.3d 146, 148-49 (Wyo. 2004), that the plaintiffs had the obligation to seek zoning relief through the board of county commissioners before they could maintain an action seeking a declaration that the zoning laws required the defendants to apply for and obtain a conditional use permit prior to drilling for minerals on the Quinn property.