Opinion ID: 2262828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Location of the Boat Launching Ramp

Text: [¶ 31] All parties agree that the Lusby Easement's description of the boat launching ramp is clear and unambiguous. It is also undisputed that the ramp was initially constructed in the specified location, but was later moved to a different spot. The Landowners sought an injunction requiring the Commission to remove the current boat ramp, reclaim the area, and reconstruct the ramp in the location specified in the Lusby Easement. In response, the Commission explained that it had moved the boat ramp at the request of Mr. Davison. The Davisons own the property on which the old boat ramp was built, and on which the present ramp is located. [¶ 32] The Commission supported its explanation with the affidavits of several employees. Mr. Kofron stated in his affidavit that: In approximately 2005, a lawyer representing Mr. Davison, contacted the [Commission] requesting that the boat launch be moved to a different, but nearby location because, in part, the platted boat launch area was too close to Mr. Davison's house. Myself and Al Conder met with Mr. Davison and his attorney. In addition to the request to move the boat launch area, Mr. Davison's lawyer also requested that boulders be positioned to prevent driving on his property, and that signs defining the landward side of the easement be created and affixed. The [Commission] accommodated Mr. Davison's request, at the [Commission's] expense. Mr. Conder's affidavit was consistent with Mr. Kofron's, and provided this additional information: After that meeting, neither the Davisons, nor the attorney we met with, ever communicated any concern or complaint regarding the work that was done to move the boat launch (and signs), and close the old boat launch. Until this litigation began it appeared as if the [Commission] had done exactly as Mr. Davison and his attorney had wanted for the boat ramp. The affidavit from Mr. DeBerard indicated that he was involved in the physical work of moving the boat launch ramp: On September 27, 2005, we were out on the job site, we were talking about how we wanted the jobsite to look and Mr. Davison [waved] us over. Mr. Davison asked us several questions about signs on the easement and the easement boundary. Mr. Davison did not ask any questions, nor did he express any concern, about the work we were doing on the new and old boat launch areas. He seemed excited about the new boat launch area as he stated that the previous area seemed to invite unwanted trespass onto his lot. We closed off the old launch with boulders so no one could park there in the future.... The [Commission] spent $2,116.72 on the Lusby job, including the cost of the materials (including boulders), and employee time. [¶ 33] Based on these facts, the Commission contended that Mr. Davison's claim was barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It listed the elements of promissory estoppel as: a clear and definite agreement; proof that the party urging the doctrine acted to its detriment in reasonable reliance on the agreement; and the equities support the enforcement of the agreement. Loghry v. Unicover Corp., 927 P.2d 706, 710 (Wyo. 1996). Applying this theory to the facts established in the employees' affidavits, the Commission maintained that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. [¶ 34] After oral argument on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court first noted the undisputed facts that Mr. Davison had requested that the ramp be moved, and that the Commission had accommodated this request at a cost of $2,116.72. The district court then wrote: Now [the Landowners], particularly Davisons, have asserted a claim for trespass because the public is using the new boat ramp. At oral argument, the [Landowners] argued that the written easement agreement could not be changed by an oral agreement. It is not clear, but I assume this is a reference to the statute of frauds, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-23-105(a)(v). If the [Landowners] are contending that they are not bound by their agreement to move the boat ramp, they cannot rely on the statute of frauds because of the complete performance of the agreed modification. Wyoming has recognized that either full or part performance of a contract involving land will avoid the statute of frauds defense. Parkhurst v. Boykin, 94 P.3d 450, 458 (Wyo.2004). The modification may also be enforceable on the basis of promissory estoppel. Linton v. E.C. [ Cates ] Gates Agency, Inc., 113 P.3d 26, 32 (Wyo.2005). In this case, application of either exception defeats the [Landowners' claim]. There is no question that the new boat ramp has been constructed and is in use. Therefore, there is complete performance of this agreement. In addition, the required elements of promissory estoppel have been met: (1) the existence of a clear and definite agreement; (2) proof that the party urging the doctrine acted in reasonable reliance on the agreement; and (3) equities supporting the enforcement of the agreement. Baker v. Ayres and Baker Pole and Post, Inc., 170 P.3d 1247, 1250 (Wyo.2007). Again, the evidence is not in dispute. The parties had an agreement to move the ramp. The [Commission] moved the ramp reasonably relying on Davison's request and the agreement of the parties to move the location of the ramp. Finally, the [Commission] expended money, manpower, and time to move the ramp solely to accommodate the Davisons. The equities strongly favor enforcement of the agreement to move the ramp. [¶ 35] When the Commission moved for summary judgment, it had the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Alloway v. RT Capital, Inc., 2008 WY 123, ¶ 7, 193 P.3d 713, 715 (Wyo.2008); Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704, 710 (Wyo.1987). With the facts established in the Commission's affidavits, discussed above, the Commission carried that burden. The burden then shifted to the Landowners to present specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists. Alloway, ¶ 8, 193 P.3d at 715; Hatton v. Energy Electric Co., 2006 WY 151, ¶ 9, 148 P.3d 8, 12 (Wyo.2006). After a movant has adequately supported the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing there are genuine issues of material fact. The opposing party must affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and cannot rely only upon allegations and pleadings ..., and conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient to satisfy the opposing party's burden. Alloway, ¶ 8, 193 P.3d at 715, quoting Cook v. Shoshone First Bank, 2006 WY 13, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 886, 890 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 36] In their brief to this Court, the Landowners assert that Mr. and Mrs. Davison disagree with the [Commission's] rendition of what occurred in relation to the ... decision to move the boat launch ramp. However, the Landowners never provide their version of what occurred. More importantly, they do not provide a single citation to the record providing any factual support for their disagreement with the Commission's rendition of what occurred. The district court was correct in ruling that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to the relocation of the boat ramp. [¶ 37] As to whether the Commission was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we note initially that the Landowners have not raised the statute of frauds in their brief to this Court. Either the district court wrongly interpreted their argument, or the Landowners have abandoned it on appeal. Either way, it is now the law of this case that the statute of frauds, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-23-105(a)(v) (LexisNexis 2009), provides no basis for denying the Commission's motion for summary judgment. [¶ 38] The crux of the Landowners' legal argument on appeal is that, Because the Commission ... had no legal authority to move the ramp, [the] `facts' are largely unimportant. They then assert that, because the Lusby Easement was purchased in part with federal-aid monies there are certain requirements and steps that must be met before any disposal or exchange of property rights can take place. They do not provide a single citation to any legal authority for this proposition. They claim that a Commission employee, Alan Bott, identified all of the issues that would first need to be addressed in order for such a change to be carried out. They list a number of such issues. However, their citation to the record  See R 1354. leads to a fee schedule that is an attachment to the Landowners' expert witness designation for Steve M. Castle and Don A. Davis. It contains no mention of Mr. Bott, of any issues involved in a land exchange, or of any requirements relating to federal funds. [¶ 39] When a party fails to provide pertinent legal authority, cogent argument, or factual support for an issue, we cannot provide meaningful review. See Kruckenberg v. Ding Masters, Inc., 2008 WY 40, ¶ 25, 180 P.3d 895, 903 (Wyo.2008). We are unable to discern the factual or legal basis of the Landowners' argument on this issue and will not consider it further. [¶ 40] Finally, in light of our conclusion that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission, we need not address the first two issues presented by the Landowners. [¶ 41] Affirmed.