In the Matter of The Establishment of A Private Roadway To Real Prop. Owned By Daniel Gallagher.J & T Properties Llc v. Gallagher

• Decision Date: 21 July 2011
• Docket Number: No. S–10–0213.,S–10–0213.
• Citation: 2011 WY 112,256 P.3d 522
• Parties: In the Matter of the Establishment of a Private Roadway to Real Property Owned by Daniel GALLAGHER.J & T Properties, LLC, Appellant (Respondent),v.Daniel Gallagher, Appellee (Petitioner).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

256 P.3d 522

2011 WY 112

In the Matter of the Establishment of a Private Roadway to Real Property Owned by Daniel GALLAGHER.J & T Properties, LLC, Appellant (Respondent),

v.Daniel Gallagher, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. S–10–0213.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 21, 2011.

Representing Appellant: R. Todd Ingram of Clapp, Ingram & Olheiser, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.Representing Appellee: Keith R. Nachbar of Keith R. Nachbar, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.KITE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] The district court granted Daniel Gallagher a private road across land owned by J & T Properties, LLC (J & T). J & T appealed, arguing the private road did not meet the statutory requirements because it did not connect directly to a public road and the district court erred by not ordering Mr. Gallagher to reimburse J & T for the costs of an appraisal establishing the damages to its property from the private road.

[¶ 2] We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] J & T presents the following issues on appeal:

A. Did the district court err in failing to create a private road leading from Gallagher's land “to some convenient public road?”

B. Did the district court err in failing to award J & T costs incurred [in] obtaining and presenting its own “before and after” appraisal?

Mr. Gallagher restates the issues as:

1. Does the private roadway statute, Wyo. Stat. § 24–9–101, require joining neighboring landowners in the proceeding where the applicant already holds legal and record access to a public road across those neighboring lands?

2. Did the District Court below commit reversible error by declining to order the applicant to pay for the private commercial appraiser hired by the landowner?

J & T articulates several issues in its reply brief. However, just one complies with the requirements of W.R.A.P. 7.03, which allows a reply brief only when necessary to address new issues raised in the appellee's brief. The one issue meeting that requirement is whether J & T argued in the district court that the rules of civil procedure authorized reimbursement of the appraisal fees.

FACTS

[¶ 4] Mr. Gallagher purchased property in an industrial area of Natrona County, just west of J & T's property. When he purchased the property, he believed that a series of easements across properties to the east provided access to a nearby public road. However, Mr. Gallagher soon learned that he did not have an easement across J & T's property. Consequently, on July 17, 2008, he petitioned the Natrona County Board of County Commissioners for a private road across J & T's property.

[¶ 5] The county commissioners concluded that Mr. Gallagher has no legally enforceable access and certified the case to the district court.¹ The district court appointed viewers and appraisers to locate a private road and place a value on the damage to the condemned property. The viewers and appraisers recommended condemning a private road along an existing roadway on J & T's property. The private road began at Mr. Gallagher's property line and continued east to the eastern boundary of J & T's property, where it connected with a series of private easements crossing the adjoining properties to a nearby public service road.

[¶ 6] The viewers and appraisers set the value of the damage to J & T's property from the private road at $1,000, without any evidentiary basis for that amount. J & T engaged a professional appraiser who performed a before-and-after analysis of the impact of the private road and concluded that the value of J & T's property was reduced by $8,200 as a result of the private road.

[¶ 7] After a hearing, the district court accepted the viewers and appraisers' recommendation as to the location of the road, but rejected their damages valuation and accepted J & T's. Although the district court awarded J & T the higher damage amount, it refused to award other expenses requested by J & T, including the cost of the appraisal. J & T appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 8] Resolution of this case requires us to interpret the relevant statutes and court rules. Because these determinations involve issues of law, our standard of review is de novo. Dorr v. Smith, Keller & Assoc., 2010 WY 120, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 549, 552 (Wyo.2010).

DISCUSSION

A. Private Road Statute

[¶ 9] J & T argues Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24–9–101 (LexisNexis Supp. 2008) required that a private road directly connect the applicant's landlocked parcel to a public road and the district court violated the statute by condemning a private road which connected with a series of private easements to reach a public road. The gist of J & T's argument is that Mr. Gallagher should have joined, in the private road action, all of the owners of the land he traversed to reach a public road even though he already had private easements across their properties.

[¶ 10] The relevant portion of § 24–9–101 ² stated:

(a) Any person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may file an application in writing with the board of county commissioners in the county where his land is located for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road.(Emphasis added). This Court applies the following principles when interpreting statutory language:

Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Our paramount consideration is the legislature's intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Initially, we determine whether the statute is clear or ambiguous.

A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute.

In interpreting a statute, we will not ignore other statutory provisions pertaining to the same subject but will, instead, consider all such provisions in pari materia.

Sorensen v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WY 101, ¶ 13, 234 P.3d 1233, 1237 (Wyo.2010), quoting Horse Creek Cons. Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney General, 2009 WY 143, ¶ 14, 221 P.3d 306, 312 (Wyo.2009) (citations omitted).

[¶ 11] Section 24–9–101(a) allows a person to apply for a private road if he has no outlet to, nor connection with, a public road. We have interpreted this language as allowing a private road application when the petitioner does not have permanent, unrestricted, legally enforceable access to his property. See, e.g., Voss v. Albany County Comm'rs, 2003 WY 94, 74 P.3d 714 (Wyo.2003) (holding that personal and/or restricted easements do not satisfy the statute's “legally enforceable” access requirement). On the other hand, if the applicant has legally enforceable access, even via a private easement, he is not landlocked and is not entitled to a private road. See id.

[¶ 12] Section 24–9–101(a) sets out the requirements for a private road application and those requirements demonstrate that the legislature wanted to encourage landlocked property owners to obtain private easements, if possible, rather than apply for private roads. Subsection (ii) requires the applicant to include a “specific statement as to why the land has no legally enforceable access;” subsection (iii) requires a “description of the applicant's efforts to purchase a legally enforceable access to a public road;” and subsection (vi) requires a “statement as to whether any actions of the applicant or any person with the consent and knowledge of the applicant, caused the applicant's land to lose or to not have any legally enforceable access.” Bearing in mind the legislature's obvious preference for private negotiations, it does not follow that it would require a landowner to condemn a right of way across property over which he already has legally enforceable access or to join parties who had previously provided such access.

[¶ 13] Section 24–9–101(a) states that the applicant can apply for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road. The plain meaning of “lead” in the context used here is “to serve to bring a person to a place.” Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1281 (2002). Applying this definition, the statute clearly states that the private road must “serve to bring a person to” a public road. It does not state that the private road has to cover the entire distance from the applicant's land to the public way or terminate at a public road. “When the legislature omits language from a statute, we consider the omission intentional.” Office of State Lands and Inv. v. Mule Shoe Ranch, Inc., 2011 WY 68, ¶ 22, 252 P.3d 951, 957 (Wyo.2011), citing Stutzman v. Office of the Wyo. State Engineer, 2006 WY 30, ¶ 16, 130 P.3d 470, 475 (Wyo.2006).

[¶ 14] Closs v. Schell, 2006 WY 95, 139 P.3d 435 (Wyo.2006) involved a private road that connected to a private easement rather than a public road. The Schells applied for a private road along an existing two track road across two different properties, the Closses' and Mr. Gronski's, to a public road. Prior to the initial hearing on the Schells' application, Mr. Gronski granted the Schells an easement across his property and was dismissed from the private road action. Although the issue of whether it was proper for a private road to terminate somewhere other than at a public road was not specifically raised, we did not indicate that there was anything wrong with the Schells using a private road and the Gronski easement to gain access to a public road. The decision indicates that once Mr. Gronski agreed to a private easement, it was appropriate to dismiss him from the action. Id., ¶¶ 3–6, 139 P.3d at 438–39.

[¶ 15] We have long said that “convenience and reason should prevail in the establishment of roads,” and these policies are included within the private road statutes. See, e.g., Lindt v. Murray, 895 P.2d 459, 462 (Wyo...