Vill. Rd. Coal. v. Teton Cnty. Housing Auth.

Decision Date02 April 2013
Docket NumberNos. S–12–0096,S–12–0104.,s. S–12–0096
PartiesVILLAGE ROAD COALITION, Appellant (Proposed Intervenor), v. TETON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee (Defendant). Don Gronberg, Sue Gronberg, Jim Farmer, Christy Fox, Jenny Fox, Dennis Cichelli, Sue Cichelli, Deborah Fox, Don Landis, Beverly Landis, Scott Austin, Holly Austin, Robin Moyer, Peter Moyer, Doug Hanson, Anna Marie Hanson, Barbara Sellas, Deborah D. Ward, Paul Perry, Pam Romsa, Lou Breitenbach, Ken Jern and Sherrie Jern, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Teton County Housing Authority, Appellee (Defendant).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Representing Appellant in Case No. S–12–0096: Phelps H. Swift, Jr. of Wilson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellants in Case No. S–12–0104: Peter F. Moyer of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee in Case Nos. S–12–0096 and S–12–0104: Kim D. Cannon and Tenille L. Castle of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Cannon.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] This opinion represents the consolidation of two related appeals. The plaintiffs in the underlying dispute appeal the district court's decision to grant Teton County Housing Authority's (TCHA) motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Separately, Village Road Coalition (VRC) appeals the district court's decision to deny VRC's motion to intervene in the underlying dispute for failure to file its motion in a timely fashion. We affirm both decisions of the district court.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying VRC's motion to intervene?

2. Was the district court's decision to grant TCHA's motion to dismiss in accordance with the law?

FACTS

[¶ 3] The Board of Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming, created TCHA in response to a shortage of safe and affordable housing accommodations in the vicinity. In 2006, the voters of Teton County approved a TCHA sponsored ballot initiative, enabling a specific purpose excise tax (SPET) to raise $5,000,000 for TCHA's Affordable Housing Program. The tax revenue was to be used for the acquisition, planning, improvement and financing of property for affordable housing. In 2007, TCHA contracted to purchase a five-acre property on Cheney Lane in Teton Village from Erving and Caryl Mantey for $2,100,000. To facilitate that purchase, TCHA borrowed $2,000,000, which has since been repaid.

[¶ 4] On June 21, 2007, the plaintiffs, self-described “Wyoming taxpayers” and “landowners and/or residents of the Cheney Lane neighborhood,” initiated a declaratory judgment action against TCHA. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged violation of Wyoming public meeting “sunshine” laws, invalid approval by the Board of County Commissioners, violation of SPET limitations, breach of investment duties, violation of Wyoming constitutional public funding limitations, violation of Wyoming statutory limits on public financing, and violation of Wyoming constitutional limits on public subsidies for private individuals. In response, TCHA moved to dismiss some of those claims and for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The district court's decision to grant those motions was appealed to this Court, which, in Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority, 2011 WY 13, ¶ 56, 247 P.3d 35, 47 (Wyo.2011), we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

[¶ 5] Upon remand, plaintiffs amended their declaratory judgment action complaint, alleging violation of SPET limitations, breach of investment duties, and violation of Wyoming statutory limits on public financing. In response, TCHA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable controversy and did not have standing to maintain the action. The hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on January 5, 2012.

[¶ 6] VRC incorporated January 19, 2012, two weeks after the district court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss. VRC is a nonprofit corporation comprised of residents and property owners in the Village Road neighborhood of Teton Park, near the Cheney Lane property. VRC filed its Motion to Intervene on January 26, 2012. VRC claimed that, in its acquisition of the Cheney Lane property, TCHA “violated its authority under the SPET ballot, breached its fiduciary and investment duties, and otherwise violated Wyoming law.” The district court denied that motion, determining that VRC had not timely filed its motion to intervene and the basis upon which VRC sought intervention was a theoretical issue that may properly be addressed through other remedies prior to judicial intervention. The plaintiffs, on behalf of VRC, requested the district court to reconsider that decision.

[¶ 7] Following the request for reconsideration, the district court attempted to certify a number of questions to this Court regarding whether it was appropriate for the district court to consider standing on remand when the issue was not raised in the initial proceedings, if standing properly was before the district court, whether the plaintiffs in fact have standing, and if plaintiffs lack standing, whether there exists a “matter of great public importance” sufficient to relax the justiciable controversy requirement. This Court declined that request and the district court denied the request for reconsideration and entered its order granting TCHA's motion to dismiss on March 29, 2012. The plaintiffs and VRC now appeal those decisions.

DISCUSSION

Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying VRC's motion to intervene?

[¶ 8] VRC sought to intervene as of right under W.R.C.P. 24(a). To be allowedto participate, VRC must meet four requirements:

First, the applicant must claim an interest related to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. Second, the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest. Third, there must be a showing that the applicant's interest will not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Fourth, the application for intervention must be timely.

Hirshberg v. Coon, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 13, 268 P.3d 258, 262 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Masinter v. Markstein, 2002 WY 64, ¶ 7, 45 P.3d 237, 240–41 (Wyo.2002)). The district court denied VRC's motion to intervene after determining that the application was not timely. Unlike the first three requirements, the issue of timeliness is not a question of law and is a ‘matter within the discretion of the district court.’ Hirshberg, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 9, 268 P.3d at 260 (quoting Masinter, 2002 WY 64, ¶ 7, 45 P.3d at 242).

The district court is permitted to weigh the timeliness of an application to intervene in light of the circumstances of the particular case, including whether the applicant may have sought intervention earlier. Therefore, to prevail on an appeal from a finding that an application to intervene is untimely, an abuse of discretion must be demonstrated.

Hirshberg, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 9, 268 P.3d at 260 (quoting Masinter, 2002 WY 64, ¶ 7, 45 P.3d at 241).

[¶ 9] Denial of a motion to intervene may be based solely on a lack of timeliness. Hirshberg, 2012 WY 5, ¶ 15, 268 P.3d at 262. The following four factors should be considered when determining timeliness:

1) “the length of time the applicant for intervention knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case before the application for leave to intervene was filed”;

2) “the extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the applicant's failure to seek intervention as soon as the applicant actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case;

3) “the extent of the prejudice that the applicant for intervention may suffer if the application is denied”; and

4) “the existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely.”

Id. at ¶ 15, 268 P.3d at 263;State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colley, 871 P.2d 191, 197 (Wyo.1994).

[¶ 10] The underlying dispute originated with the plaintiffs' first complaint filed in 2007. Since that time, there have been numerous motions and orders, a prior appeal to this Court, and this Court's determination that some issues brought on appeal ought to be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. At that time, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and TCHA sought to have those revised causes of action dismissed. VRC sought to intervene three weeks after the hearing on that motion had been held. Throughout the preceding five years, VRC was necessarily aware of these proceedings as the sole incorporator and agent of VRC, Peter Moyer, is not only a plaintiff in the underlying dispute, but also the attorney for the plaintiffs. Granting VRC's motion to intervene would delay the proceedings and force the parties to incur additional costs as they would need to resubmit their briefs and, perhaps, undergo an additional hearing on the pending motion to dismiss. Additionally, VRC seeks to intervene based on claims that TCHA breached its authority under the SPET initiative, breached its fiduciary and investment duties, and “otherwise violated Wyoming law” and requests that the district court order the sale of the property purchased by TCHA. Those claims and the relief sought are duplicative of those presented by the plaintiffs in the underlying action; a denial of the motion to intervene will result in no prejudice to VRC. Finally, VRC has presented no mitigating circumstances that would offset the tardiness of the motion.

[¶ 11] The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that VRC's motion to intervene was untimely and, therefore, denying said motion.

Was the district court's decision to grant TCHA's motion to dismiss in accordance with the law?

[¶ 12] Following remand from this Court, TCHA filed its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Allred v. Bebout
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 30, 2018
    ...will increase the taxpayer's burden as a taxpayer." Village Road Coalition v. Teton Cty. Hous. Auth. , 2013 WY 38, ¶ 16 n.2, 298 P.3d 163, 169 n.2 (Wyo. 2013). No such allegation appears in the amended complaint. Finally, Appellants' argument that "this Court upheld citizen and taxpayer sta......
  • Tavern, LLC v. Town of Alpine
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 16, 2017
    ...in cases involving matters of great public interest or importance." Vill. Rd. Coal. v. Teton Cty. Hous. Auth. , 2013 WY 38, ¶ 13, 298 P.3d 163, 168 (Wyo. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Justiciability encompasses several doctrines, including standing, ripeness,......
  • City of Torrington v. Smith
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 28, 2016
    ...harmed, a judicial decision cannot remedy a nonexistent harm." Vill. Rd. Coalition v. Teton Cty. Hous. Auth. , 2013 WY 38, ¶ 16, 298 P.3d 163, 169 (Wyo. 2013). Because the City has alleged no harm, the courts could fashion no remedy. There is no controversy the judicial determination of whi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT