Testolin v. Thirty-One Bar Ranch Co.
| Docket Number | S-23-0132 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 WY 6 |
| Parties | TONY R. TESTOLIN and TIM KARLBERG, Appellants (Defendants), v. THIRTY-ONE BAR RANCH COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
1
2024 WY 6
TONY R. TESTOLIN and TIM KARLBERG, Appellants (Defendants),
v.
THIRTY-ONE BAR RANCH COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff).
No. S-23-0132
Supreme Court of Wyoming
January 16, 2024
Appeal from the District Court of Platte County The Honorable Michael K. Davis (Retired Justice), Judge
Representing Appellants: Brandon L. Jensen and Rachael L. Buzanowski, Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jensen.
Representing Appellee: M. Gregory Weisz, Pence and MacMillan LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
FOX, Chief Justice
[¶1] Thirty-One Bar Ranch Company (Thirty-One Bar) sued Tony R. Testolin and Tim Karlberg (collectively Defendants) over an access easement Defendants claimed across a portion of Thirty-One Bar's property. Thirty-One Bar challenged the validity of the easement and the way it was being used. The district court upheld the validity of Defendants' easement but restricted how they could use it. Defendants appeal the ruling restricting their use of the easement. We reverse.
ISSUES
[¶2] The parties each presented a single issue for review, but we conclude the appeal presents two questions:
1. Did the district court err in interpreting the access easement to restrict Defendants from using it to allow a commercial hunting outfitter access to their property
2. Did the district court err in finding that use of the easement to allow a commercial hunting outfitter access to Defendants' property overburdened Thirty-One Bar's property
FACTS
[¶3] Thirty-One Bar owns approximately 5,500 acres in Platte County known as the Brush Creek Property. Adjacent to the Brush Creek Property is a 2,360-acre property known as the Richeau Property. Historically, access to both properties was by a road known as Brush Creek Road. Brush Creek Road partially traverses the Brush Creek Property in a north-south direction and is initially a county road. At the end of the county road, it becomes a private road with a 2.47-mile-long branch of it leading to the Richeau Property.
[¶4] In 1972, Nedalyn Wilhelm, whose family had operated Thirty-One Bar for years, married Tony D. Testolin (Tony Senior).[1] From 1972 until 1996, Thirty-One Bar had four shareholders; Nedalyn Testolin and Tony Senior jointly owned 94.54% of the outstanding shares, and Nedalyn's daughters from a prior marriage, Lael Good and Conilee Swantek, owned the remainder.
[¶5] In 1996, Tony Senior purchased the Richeau Property. On October 24, 1997, he deeded the property to himself and Nedalyn as tenants in common, and on that same day, the two transferred the property from themselves to the Tony D. and Nedalyn D. Family Trust (Family Trust). They also transferred their shares in Thirty-One Bar to the Family Trust.
[¶6] In 1998, Tony Senior and Nedalyn executed a private road easement. It purported to be a grant from Thirty-One Bar, Tony Senior, and Nedalyn to Tony Senior, and it granted an easement across the Brush Creek Property to the Richeau Property. The easement allowed access across the 2.47-mile portion of Brush Creek Road that branches off to the Richeau Property after the county road ends. At that time, the Brush Creek Property and Richeau Property were operated as a common agricultural operation, and the easement indicated it was reciprocal.
[¶7] In 2004, the Family Trust sold forty acres of the Richeau Property to Tim Karlberg. Mr. Karlberg was married to Tony Senior's daughter Deborah until she passed away, and the Family Trust sold him the property, at least in part, to have him closer to Tony Senior and Nedalyn as they aged and required more assistance. When Mr. Karlberg asked about access, Nedalyn provided him with a copy of the private road easement, which he also found recorded. Over the course of eleven months in 2004, Mr. Karlberg built a home on the Richeau Property, and his contractors used the easement road for access. He continued to use the easement road for access after his home was complete.
[¶8] In August 2020, Tony Senior and Nedalyn entered into an agreement to split their assets to provide for distribution to their respective children on their deaths. By warranty deed, the Family Trust conveyed the Richeau Property to Tony Senior, and by quitclaim deed, Nedalyn conveyed any interest she might have in the property to him. Tony Senior in turn transferred to Nedalyn the shares in Thirty-One Bar allocated to him under the Family Trust and quitclaimed any interest he had in the Brush Creek Property.
[¶9] In the fall of 2020, Tony Senior entered into an agreement with a hunting outfitter to allow it to guide on the Richeau Property, using the easement road as access. Thirty-One Bar objected to Tony Senior's use of the road for this purpose and installed locked gates to prevent access. On September 29, 2020, Nedalyn's daughter, Lael Good, sent an email to Tony Senior, Tony Junior, and Mr. Karlberg with an attached document from the Thirty-One Bar Board of Directors (Nedalyn, Conilee Swantek, and Lael Good). The document concerned use of Brush Creek Road and stated:
At this time we are giving you notice that the so-called easement is not a valid easement and is not the basis for you or anyone else to get to the Richeau property.
This document provides notice of our verbal permission for you and your immediate family members to use the road. You are the ONLY individuals traveling to the Richeau who are able to use the road until further notice.
Below are the stipulations.
• We will be locking the entrance at the overhead and will provide you with three keys, one for Tony Sr.[,] one for Tony Jr[.,] and one for Tim Karlberg. These keys are not to be used or given to anyone but the three of you. They can't be replicated and anyone else using them will be cited for trespassing.
• We have informed Table Mountain Outfitters that they will be required to use the easement they currently have through the Grant Ranch to get to the Richeau until these issues have been resolved.
• A future specific easement can be negotiated but until one has been agreed upon this notice is to let you know that only you have permission to use the road.
• Should you have any questions, please contact our attorney who is CCed on this notice and if we discover you have tried to go around the agreements made by the current Thirty One Bar Ranch Directors and go to Nedalyn for permission we will consider that a breach of the above stipulations and remove our verbal permission.
[¶10] The parties continued to have disputes over use of the private road easement and Thirty-One Bar's blocking of the easement. In January 2021, Nedalyn died, and in September 2021, Thirty-One Bar filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Tony Senior and Mr. Karlberg.[2] It sought a declaration that the road easement was not valid, or if valid, that Defendants exceeded the permissible use of the easement. It also asserted claims for quiet title and damages for a cable and lock that it alleged Tony Senior or his agent cut. Defendants counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment to quiet title to the
private road easement and for a permanent injunction enjoining Thirty-One Bar from interfering with their use of the easement. In the alternative, they sought a declaration that they hold implied easements, for establishment of a private road, or for reformation of the easement to correct a scrivener's error.
[¶11] Following a bench trial, the district court ruled that Thirty-One Bar's challenge to the validity of the private road easement was barred by several statutes of limitations, and it upheld the validity of the easement and quieted title in Defendants. It concluded the easement benefited the Richeau property, and that it was appurtenant to and ran with the land. The court found that Thirty-One Bar had not proved its claim for damages.
[¶12] The district court found Defendants' claim for reformation of the easement barred by laches, and, having upheld the validity of the private road easement, it did not address their claims for an implied easement or statutory private road. The court ruled that Thirty-One Bar may retain the gates between its property and the Richeau Property, but it granted Defendants' request for an injunction enjoining Thirty-One Bar from locking the gate unless the parties agreed in writing.
[¶13] Most relevant to this appeal, the district court ruled in Thirty-One Bar's favor on its claim that use of the easement to allow a commercial hunting outfitter access to the Richeau Property exceeded the scope of the easement. In so ruling, the court found that: the road was historically used for agricultural and residential purposes; Nedalyn, the Family Trust, and Tony Senior were careful to limit and monitor access to the properties for hunting purposes; and they received no monetary benefit from allowing hunting by family and friends. The court also made findings concerning the negative impact use of the easement for outfitter access would have on Thirty-One Bar's property, which we will detail later in the opinion.
[¶14] Thirty-One Bar did not appeal any of the rulings adverse to it. Defendants timely appealed the district court's ruling that allowing hunting outfitters access to the Richeau Property was an impermissible use of the easement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶15] When reviewing a district court's decision after a bench trial, we use the following standard of review:
The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does...
To continue reading
Request your trial