Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2007 WY 206

By Meg

Summary of Decision issued December 20, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Sunshine Custom Paints & Body, Inc. v. So. Douglas Hwy Water & Sewer District

Citation: 2007 WY 206

Docket Number: S-07-0017

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Tad T. Daly and Matthew R. Sorenson of Daly Law Associates, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee South Douglas Highway Water & Sewer District (Defendant): James L. Edwards of Stevens, Edwards, Hallock & Carpenter, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee City of Gillette (Defendant): Charles W. Anderson, Gillette City Attorney?s Office; Judith Studer of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in finding the language of the dedication deed superior to the plain language of the plat. Whether the district court erred in finding the term ?public use? granted subsurface rights as well as surface rights to the public. Whether the district court erred in granting the City of Gillette?s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim.

Facts/Discussion: Sunshine, Cyclone, and M & J (the Landowners) appeal from the district court?s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sewer District and the City on their claim that the City did not have the right to construct a sewer trunk line beneath a road adjacent to their property.
Standard of Review: Summary judgment motions are governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c). The Court reviews summary judgment rulings de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court.
Status of Mohan Road: Several of the issues the parties raised pertained to the Landowners? property rights in Mohan Road. The Court considered them together. Property may be dedicated to the public and dedication may be accomplished directly by deed or by recording a plat. The Landowners? argument that the plat took precedence over the dedication deed missed the point because the two documents pertained to different properties. The Court discussed their decisions in Ruby Drilling Co., Inc. v. Billingsley and Owsley v. Robinson. The Court ruled that the Landowners whose property abutted the northerly portion of Mohan Road did not have standing because the area disturbed by the sewer line was covered by the dedication deed which had unequivocally dedicated it to the public. Because the section of road adjacent to Lot 9 was dedicated in the plat rather than by the dedication deed, and M&J Services claimed the subdivision had an exclusive utility easement pursuant to dedication language in the plat, it had standing to contest the City?s use of the roadway. The Court therefore addressed the effect of the plat. The plat did not state that the right to use the property for utilities was exclusive to the subdivision. Thus, even if the subdivision reserved a utility easement, it was not exclusive and the City would have the right to install utilities pursuant to the street dedication so long as it did not interfere with the subdivision?s use of the easement.
Intentional Interference with Contract: It is undisputed that Cyclone placed a pump house on Mohan Road in order to delay the sewer line construction. There was no showing that Cyclone had the legal right to do so. Even if their asserted property interest in the road was legitimate, they did not have a right to block the construction.

Holding: The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City and Sewer District on the Landowners? claim that the City improperly used Mohan Road for installation of the sewer line. The undisputed facts show that Cyclone?s action was improper and a weighing of the factors set out in Toltec and § 766 was not required. The district court properly held that as a matter of law, Cyclone?s interference with the City?s contract with Western was improper.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3x653s .

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on January 03, 2008 (boomark / email).