Levy v. Aspen S, LLC
| Citation | 483 P.3d 852 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | S-20-0164 |
| Parties | Adam Bruce LEVY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. ASPEN S, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; Kelvin H. Stirn and Nancy J. Stirn, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Representing Appellant: Paula A. Fleck, Holland & Hart LLP, Jackson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees: Erika M. Nash, Aaron J. Lyttle, Long Reimer Winegar LLP, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Nash.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Adam Bruce Levy brought a declaratory judgment action against Aspen S, LLC and Kelvin H. and Nancy J. Stirn (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Stirns) asking the district court to declare he had the right to install underground fiber optic cable within a utility easement located on the Stirns' property. He also requested his attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision. Four months later, the Stirns agreed Mr. Levy had the right to install the fiber optic cable in the easement and moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming Mr. Levy's declaratory judgment action was moot because there was no longer a justiciable controversy. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action as moot and denied Mr. Levy's request for attorney fees and costs. Mr. Levy appealed. He challenges only the district court's denial of his attorney fees and costs. We reverse and remand.
[¶2] We restate the issue as follows:
Did the district court err in concluding Mr. Levy was not entitled to his attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision?
[¶3] Mr. Levy owns property in Teton County, Wyoming, which is benefitted by a 30-foot wide "access and underground utility easement" located on the Stirns' property. In July 2019, Mr. Levy contacted Silver Star Communications (Silver Star) for the installation of underground fiber optic cable within the easement to facilitate telephone service and internet access to his property. Although not clear from the record, it appears Silver Star attempted to access the easement area but the Stirns refused to allow access unless they were paid and provided free internet service, including free installation of the "trunk line" and "drop lines" to their property. Silver Star communicated the Stirns' demands to Mr. Levy.
[¶4] The next month, Mr. Levy hired a surveyor to determine the easement's exact location for purposes of installing the cable. The Stirns ordered the surveyor to leave the easement area, and Ms. Stirn told the surveyor she did not recognize the easement and would not allow installation without payment. Mr. Levy met with the Stirns and informed them the easement gave him the right to install underground utilities, including fiber optic cable. The Stirns disagreed and again refused to agree to the installation unless they were guaranteed free internet service. In September 2019, Mr. Levy spoke with Silver Star about the status of the cable installation; Silver Star informed him Mr. Stirn had called and reiterated the Stirns' demand for free internet access before they would allow the cable to be installed. The next month, Mr. Levy again attempted to have the easement surveyed; the Stirns again ejected the surveyor from the easement area. Mr. Levy made one last attempt to persuade the Stirns to agree to the installation; still, the Stirns refused to agree to the installation.
[¶5] Several months later, in January 2020, Mr. Levy filed a complaint against the Stirns seeking (1) a declaration that the easement allows for the installation of underground fiber optic cable; and (2) his attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision. Four months later, the Stirns signed and recorded "Affidavits Affecting Title" in the Teton County Clerk's Office in which they agreed the easement "includes the installation, construction and maintenance of underground fiber optic telecommunication wire/cable located within the burdened area of the Servient Estate [(the Stirns' property)] for the benefit of the Dominant Estate [(Mr. Levy's property)]." A week later, they filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) in the district court. They claimed Mr. Levy's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no longer a justiciable controversy due to their filing of the "Affidavits Affecting Title," which acknowledged Mr. Levy had the right to install fiber optic cable in the easement. Mr. Levy agreed his claim for declaratory relief was rendered moot by the "Affidavits Affecting Title." However, he argued his claim for attorney fees and costs remained a justiciable controversy and he was entitled to his fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision.
[¶6] The district court concluded the "Affidavits Affecting Title" established the Stirns no longer contested that the easement allowed for the installation of fiber optic cable and rendered Mr. Levy's declaratory judgment action moot. As a result, it dismissed the declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court decided Mr. Levy was not entitled to his attorney fees and costs. Mr. Levy timely appealed.
[¶7] Mr. Levy does not challenge the district court's dismissal of his declaratory judgment action as moot. He disputes only the district court's denial of his request for attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision. We review de novo a district court's interpretation of an easement, including its fee-shifting provision. See Douglas v. Jackson Hole Land Tr. , 2020 WY 69, ¶ 12, 464 P.3d 1223, 1227 (Wyo. 2020) ; Larson v. Burton Constr., Inc. , 2018 WY 74, ¶ 16, 421 P.3d 538, 544 (Wyo. 2018) ().1
[¶8] In interpreting an easement, we apply our general rules of contract interpretation. Douglas , ¶ 20, 464 P.3d at 1230 (quoting Pennant Serv. Co., Inc. v. True Oil Co., LLC, 2011 WY 40, ¶ 24, 249 P.3d 698, 708-09 (Wyo. 2011) ). See also , Gayhart v. Corsi , 2020 WY 58, ¶ 15, 462 P.3d 904, 909 (Wyo. 2020) . The parties' disagreement over the meaning of an easement does not create an ambiguity.
Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Summit Well Serv., Inc. , 2002 WY 172, ¶ 19, 57 P.3d 1257, 1262 (Wyo. 2002) (citations omitted).
[¶9] " " Douglas , ¶ 20, 464 P.3d at 1229-30 (quoting Thorkildsen v. Belden , 2012 WY 8, ¶ 10, 269 P.3d 421, 424 (Wyo. 2012) ) (other citations omitted). In this case, Mr. Levy seeks his attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision, which states:
In any proceeding to enforce any of the terms and conditions in this instrument, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorney's fees, whether suit is brought or not.
[¶10] The district court decided Mr. Levy was not entitled to his attorney fees and costs under this provision because (1) his declaratory judgment action was not a "proceeding to enforce" and (2) Mr. Levy was not the "prevailing party." We address each in turn.
[¶11] The district court decided Mr. Levy's declaratory judgment action was not a "proceeding to enforce" because it sought only an interpretation of the easement's terms. In so deciding, the court relied on our recent decision in Douglas .
[¶12] Mr. Levy argues the district court erred in determining his declaratory judgment action was not a "proceeding to enforce." He claims under the plain meaning of the phrase, he brought a "proceeding to enforce" because he engaged in a "course of action" to "compel [the Stirns'] obedience to" the easement's terms. According to him:
[He] repeatedly sought to enforce the [easement's] terms informally, by explaining to [the Stirns] that he has a right to install the cable and requesting [they] stop interfering with his attempts to do so. Nonetheless, [the Stirns] repeatedly interfered with [his] rights under the [e]asement by preventing his surveyors and contractors from accessing the [e]asement. [He] again confronted [the Stirns] in an effort to get them to comply with the [e]asement they had signed. Only after [they] rebuffed these informal enforcement efforts did [he] file suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that he has a right to install cable in the [e]asement.
(Record citations omitted). Mr. Levy further maintains his declaratory judgment action was functionally equivalent to an enforcement action because a declaratory judgment in his favor would have compelled the Stirns to allow him to install the fiber optic cable.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EOG Res., Inc. v. JJLM Land, LLC
...in its reply brief, JJLM is also entitled to its attorney fees and costs on appeal. Cf. Levy v. Aspen S, LLC , 2021 WY 46, ¶ 32, 483 P.3d 852, 860 (Wyo. 2021) ("Because Mr. Levy is entitled to his attorney fees and costs under the easement's fee-shifting provision, he is also entitled to th......
-
Hensel v. DAPCPA RPO LLC
...and its definition from Black's Law Dictionary, which is "'to obtain the relief sought in an action; to win a lawsuit.'" Levy, ¶¶ 22-23, 483 P.3d at 859 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevail and Prevail, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)). [¶18] Under any of the above defi......
-
Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n
...reply brief, JJLM is also entitled to its attorney fees and costs on appeal." (citing Levy v. Aspen S, LLC , 2021 WY 46, ¶ 32, 483 P.3d 852, 860 (Wyo. 2021), Kinstler v. RTB S. Greeley, Ltd., LLC , 2007 WY 98, ¶ 13, 160 P.3d 1125, 1129 (Wyo. 2007), and DeWitt v. Balben , 718 P.2d 854, 864 (......
-
Testolin v. Thirty-One Bar Ranch Co.
...Interpretation of an easement presents a question of law that we interpret de novo. Levy v. Aspen S, LLC, 2021 WY 46, ¶ 7, 483 P.3d 852, 855 (Wyo. 2021). I. The district court erred in interpreting the private road easement to restrict Defendants from using it to allow a commercial hunting ......