Opinion ID: 2525241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Interest as Damages

Text: [¶ 45] Mr. Mayland claims he is entitled to interest on the damages awarded from the date of entry of the temporary restraining order by the district court. That order essentially granted Mr. Flitner continued access to Mayland/Snowshoe Pass Road from the summer of 1995 through the conclusion of the private road application process. At the January 18, 2000, objection hearing, Mr. Mayland specifically requested the County Commissioners award interest on the damages and incorporated such language in his proposed Order Adopting Report of Appraisers and Establishing Private Road. The County Commissioners rejected this proposal and struck the interest provision from the order as executed on February 1, 2000. [8] [¶ 46] Mr. Mayland argues interest is appropriate pursuant to the law of eminent domain and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-16-102 (LexisNexis 2001) as post-judgment interest. The eminent domain statutes provide a separate and distinct remedy from the private road application process. Coronado Oil Company, 603 P.2d at 412. Section 1-16-102 is inapplicable because it applies to final judgments by the courts and, even if it arguably applies to county action, Mr. Flitner immediately paid upon issuance of the County Commissioners' final order. If Mr. Mayland's argument is that the statute should apply upon issuance of the temporary restraining order, such an order is not a final determination of the rights of the parties in [an] action. W.R.C.P. 54(a). [¶ 47] Further, the County Commissioners only have authority to award damages caused by their creation of a private road. Sections 24-9-101 to -104. The statute provides no authority for the county to include in its damages calculation alleged additional damages caused by a preceding temporary restraining order issued by the district court. As a creature of the legislature, an administrative agency has only the powers granted to it by statute, and the justification for the exercise of any authority by the agency must be found within the applicable statute. Montana Dakota Utilities Co. v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming, 847 P.2d 978, 983 (Wyo.1993). A statute will be strictly construed when determining the authority granted to an agency. Id. Any agency decision that falls outside the confines of the statutory guidelines articulated by the legislature is contrary to law and cannot stand. Tri County Telephone Association, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission, 910 P.2d 1359, 1361 (Wyo. 1996). In other words, reasonable doubt of the existence of a power must be resolved against the exercise thereof. A doubtful power does not exist. French v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023, 1027 (Wyo.1998). LePage v. State, Department of Health, 2001 WY 26, ¶ 13, 18 P.3d 1177, ¶ 13 (Wyo.2001). [¶ 48] The record contains no information concerning whether Mr. Mayland sought interest from the district court as an element of damage caused by the temporary restraining order proceeding. Interest is allowed in some cases by courts of equity when it would not be recoverable at law, and in such cases it is allowed or refused by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion. 25 C.J.S. Damages § 54 at 806 (1966). Any action or inaction by the district court was not raised as an issue on appeal. [¶ 49] We conclude the County Commissioners acted within the scope of their statutory authority in denying the request for interest. [¶ 50] Affirmed.