304 P.3d 932
Wyo.2013Background
- Evan and Sandra Cross own land in Crook County that is completely landlocked; they applied to the county commissioners for a private road to reach U.S. Highway 14.
- The proposed route would cross property owned by Wayne Altaffer and then cross Bureau of Reclamation (federal) land; the Crosses listed Altaffer and the Bureau as affected parties.
- Altaffer moved to dismiss, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over federal land and the Board could not grant a private road that did not directly connect to the Cross parcel or rest on a federal permit that would not be appurtenant.
- The Board dismissed the application on three legal grounds: lack of jurisdiction to affect federal land, requirement that the private road physically connect to the landlocked parcel, and the requirement that access be an incorporeal right appurtenant to the property.
- The district court reversed the Board, finding dismissal would render the Cross property useless and remanded to the Board; Altaffer appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cross) | Defendant's Argument (Altaffer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county may consider private-road application involving federal land | Board may consider and grant a private road that necessarily involves crossing federal land; prior precedent treats federal roads as public roads for statute purposes | Board lacks jurisdiction to condemn or bind federal lands; sovereign immunity prevents exercising control | Court: Board erred; county may consider such applications even if route crosses federal land |
| Whether § 24-9-101 requires the private road to physically connect to the landlocked parcel | Private road need only "serve to bring a person to" a public road; may combine with other legal access | Private road must directly connect to the applicant's parcel | Court: No direct-connection requirement; route may rely on other lawful means to reach parcel |
| Whether proposed access dependent on a federal permit (non‑appurtenant right) bars relief | When no alternative route exists, applicant may rely on non-appurtenant federal access and still have application considered | A right that is not appurtenant cannot satisfy statutory requirement; applicant cannot rely on non‑appurtenant federal permit | Court: Where no alternative exists, application must be considered; non‑appurtenant federal access does not automatically bar relief |
| Whether Board should have dismissed to avoid a "road to nowhere" if federal permit denied | Application can be conditioned on obtaining required federal permit; Board may impose conditions | Granting would create a road that might lead nowhere if federal permit denied | Court: Remand; Board may condition any grant on Bureau of Reclamation approval or other appropriate conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1940) (sovereign immunity bars suits against U.S. absent consent)
- Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 926 (10th Cir. 1975) (Congress has not consented to suits seeking private roads across federal land)
- Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 135 P.3d 598 (Wyo. 2006) (federal roads may qualify as public roads under Wyoming private-road statutes)
- J & T Properties, LLC v. Gallagher, 256 P.3d 522 (Wyo. 2011) (private road must "serve to bring a person to" a public road; need not cover entire distance)
- McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1980) (establishes necessity as threshold for private road and considers federal/admin roads in access analyses)
- Voss v. Albany County Comm'rs, 74 P.3d 714 (Wyo. 2003) (distinguishes cases where alternative access exists and discusses appurtenant vs. non‑appurtenant rights)