Homestead Farms v. Board of Com'Rs
| Decision Date | 22 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 30642.,No. 30587.,30587.,30642. |
| Citation | 119 P.3d 630,141 Idaho 855 |
| Parties | HOMESTEAD FARMS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, State of Idaho, Respondent. Verla Ard Hall and the Hall Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Board of Commissioners of Teton County, State of Idaho, Defendant. Homestead Farms, Inc., an Idaho corporation, Petitioner, v. Board of Commissioners of Teton County, State of Idaho, Respondent. Verla Ard Hall and the Hall Family Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Board of Commissioners of Teton County, State of Idaho, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Grover & Butikofer, P.A., Rigby, for appellants Verla Ard Hall and the Hall Family Trust. Blair J. Grover argued.
Wilbur T. Nelson, Boise, for appellant Homestead Farms, Inc.
Laura E. Lowery, Driggs, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a memorandum decision of the district court dismissing in part and remanding in part judicial review proceedings brought by the Petitioner, Homestead Farms, Inc. (Homestead) and Plaintiffs below, Verla Ard Hall and the Hall Family Trust (Hall) from a resolution of the Teton County Board of Commissioners (Commissioners) adopting a county highway map. Homestead and Hall own farmlands in western Teton County on which public highways were designated on the Teton County highway system map. Homestead and Hall sought judicial review of the Commissioners' inclusion of three of these roads on the county map. Because there is no record demonstrating the Commissioners followed proper statutory procedures in updating and amending their county highway system map to include properly created public highways, we remand.
This case arises from the Commissioners' attempts to comply with the requirements of I.C. § 40-202, that each county commission prepare a county road system map. The statute requires each county in the state of Idaho to make an "initial selection of the county highway system," by causing a map to be prepared showing the general location of each public highway and right-of-way within their jurisdiction and, after a hearing, adopt the map as the official map of their highway system. Although the record does not reflect it, apparently in 1991 and 1996 the Commissioners adopted some kind of "official map" for Teton County. There is no record, however, of precisely what the Commissioners did or what map they adopted or how they went about creating their official highway map. I.C. § 40-202 also requires each county in Idaho to revisit its official highway map every five years, review any changes, and then adopt a current official county map.
In 2001, the Commissioners selected a "Big Sky Map," a commercially-produced map of Teton County, and by colored pen, designated various types of roadways throughout the County which they claimed to be public roadways within the meaning of I.C. § 40-202. They then gave public notice of their intent to adopt this map, and conducted hearings in July 2001 for the purpose of adopting it as the official county highway system map. The Commissioners gave the public until October 9, 2001, to petition for changes, at which point a new map would be drawn and another hearing scheduled for official adoption.1
Homestead and Hall responded to the notice, objecting to the map's inclusion of three unimproved dirt roads crossing their properties as "public" roads. Homestead (which argued for the exclusion of Road # 1, and a portion of Road # 2), and Hall (which argued for the exclusion of a second portion of Road # 2, and Road # 3), argued there was no evidence supporting a finding that the roads crossing their properties were public roads, highways, or public rights-of-way within any statutory definition. In response, the Commissioners advised Homestead and Hall they would need to request vacation of the roads pursuant to I.C. § 40-203 to have the roads removed from the map. The final hearing was held on April 8, 2002, and the Commissioners adopted the Big Sky Map, reflecting several amendments, but still including the three disputed roads. The record does not reflect any findings as to why the Commissioners decided to continue to include the disputed roads on the official map. The Board's engineers prepared the final map from the Big Sky map that was adopted.
Homestead and Hall declined to seek vacation of these roads, believing these roads were not public in the first place and, therefore, there was no basis or need to vacate what, in effect, was private property. Instead, both parties separately filed petitions for judicial review of the Commissioners' actions, alleging that the Commissioners' initial inclusion of the roads was improper. After the petitions for judicial review were filed, the Commissioners advertised their intention to vacate two of the subject roads and, following hearings, abandoned any claim previously asserted in all of Road # 1 and a portion of Road # 2, and deleted them from the county road system map.
On judicial review, Homestead and Hall argued that § 40-202 only provides a means for identifying roads within a county and the Commissioners' inclusion of the roads on the map had unlawfully converted the proceeding into an adjudication, legally altering the status of any road included on the map. The district court consolidated the two cases for consideration on review. Oral arguments in the judicial review proceeding were conducted and the district court issued a Memorandum Decision on December 3, 2003. The court ruled that the Commissioners' actions were not tantamount to adjudicating the public status of any roads, but instead were intended to achieve a means of identifying roads within the county that the Commissioners believed to be public roads, presumably based on public hearings prior to their inclusion.
The court also found that the record below was devoid of any factual determinations made by the Commissioners in support of their decision to include the subject roads as part of the county system map. However, the court decided that since the Commissioners had abandoned any claim of public interest in Road # 1, and part of Road # 2, Homestead's claims for relief had been rendered moot. The court found that as to Hall's interest in the remaining portion of Road # 2, and Road # 3, there was an inadequate record of the considerations underlying the Commissioners' decision to include those roadways in the county highway map and, therefore, the trial court remanded Hall's petition for further proceedings in accord with the principles set forth in Burrup v. Stanger, 114 Idaho 50, 53, 753 P.2d 261 (Ct.App.1988). Finally, the court denied Homestead and Hall's request for attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-117 and 12-121. This appeal followed.
A final decision or order of the district court on judicial review of an agency decision is appealable as a matter of right. I.A.R. 11(f). In a subsequent appeal from a district court's decision in which the district court was acting in its appellate capacity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Supreme Court reviews the agency record independently of the district court's decision. Floyd v. Board of Com'rs of Bonneville County, 137 Idaho 718, 52 P.3d 863 (2002). Decisions made by a board of county or highway district commissioners in an abandonment, vacation or validation proceeding are subject to judicial review pursuant to I.C. § 40-208. In such a case, the review is conducted by the court without a jury and is confined to the record. I.C. § 40-208(6). The court also may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioners as to the weight of the information on questions of fact.
In the case at bar, Homestead and Hall have not challenged a decision regarding an abandonment, vacation or validation proceeding. Instead, they are challenging the Commissioners decision to place disputed roads on an official county highway map in a § 40-202 proceeding, which action presumptively has the effect of notifying the public that such roads occupy the status of public highways and/or rights-of-way. Although there is no applicable standard of review previously articulated by the Court for such a situation, since I.C. § 40-202 is contained in the section of the Code relating to general provisions for the establishment and maintenance of the state and county highway system, including procedures required for abandonment, vacation or validation of highways, it is logical that the statutorily mandated standard of review under § 40-208 should apply to § 40-202 decisions. Therefore, the following standard will be applied in evaluating this appeal.
The Court may affirm the decision of the commissioners or remand the case for further proceedings. The Court may also reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the commissioners' findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the commissioners;
(c) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) Affected by other error of law;
(e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial information on the whole record; or
(f) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
I.C. § 40-208(7). Erroneous conclusions of law made by an agency may be corrected on appeal. Love v. Board of County Comm'rs of Bingham County, 105 Idaho 558, 559, 671 P.2d 471, 472 (1983). The right to recover attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117 presents an issue of law that we review de novo. Farrell v. Board of Comrs. of Lemhi County, 138 Idaho 378, 64 P.3d 304 (2002).
Homestead and Hall's main point of contention in this case is that the Commissioners unlawfully undertook to declare the status of various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halvorson v. N. Latah Cnty. Highway Dist.
...the district court's reliance on the 1986 Highway District map, citing Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Teton County, 141 Idaho 855, 862, 119 P.3d 630, 637 (2005) (Eismann, J. concurring). The Halvorsons are correct in this regard. "[I]f a road is not properly created as a......
-
Ada County Highway Dist. v. Tsi
...a three day court trial. Thus, the requirements of procedural due process have been met. TSI's reliance on Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 141 Idaho 855, 119 P.3d 630 (2005), is misplaced; in that case the Commissioners created a map showing public highways. The Court held it was e......
-
Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty.
...district court acted in an appellate capacity, this Court independently reviews the County record. Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 141 Idaho 855, 858, 119 P.3d 630, 633 (2005). Idaho Code section 40–208 governs judicial review of validation proceedings. Floyd v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 131......
-
Munden v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
...by the statute—to amend the official county map—is also intended to do the same, see Homestead Farms, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm'rs , 141 Idaho 855, 119 P.3d 630, 637 (2005) (Eismann, J., specially concurring) (noting that the "inclusion of a private road on the highway map" could have legal conse......