Barlow Ranch, Limited Partnership v. Greencore Pipeline Company LLC
301 P.3d 75
Wyo.2013Background
- Greencore sought to condemn a 100-foot construction and 50-foot permanent easement for a CO2 pipeline across Barlow Ranch property.
- Partial taking unresolved: court to determine just compensation while possession and easement scope were agreed.
- Barlow presented prices paid for comparable pipeline easements to prove fair market value; Greencore urged those comparables were unreliable and that only the value of the taken rights should matter.
- District court admitted comparable-easement evidence under Wyoming Eminent Domain Act but found Barlow’s comparables not sufficiently arms’ length or comparable; awarded damages based on Greencore’s own average price paid for other easements ($50/rod) with no annual payments.
- Barlow and Maycocks challenged comparability and arms’ length findings; Greencore cross-appealed on the weighting of comparables and the non-applicability of annual payments, among other issues.
- Court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part to re-evaluate comparables and the possible use of annual payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May comparable easements be used to establish fair market value? | Barlow argues comparables are admissible under §1-26-704(a)(iii). | Greencore contends comparables are unreliable and should be limited to before-after value. | Statute permits use of comparable easements; remand for proper analysis. |
| Are Barlow’s proposed comparables arms’ length and sufficiently similar? | Barlow asserts the proffered easements are comparable in type, size, and location and were arms’ length. | Greencore argues many comparables are tainted by location pressures or settlement-condemnation contexts. | District court erred; some comparables (including post-condemnation Western Gas easements) can be arms’ length; require case-by-case evaluation. |
| Does §1-26-704(a)(iii) apply to partial takings and permit use of prices paid for comparable easements? | Barlow relies on statutory language allowing comparable easements to determine fair market value. | Greencore contends the statute does not apply to partial takings or requires strict arms’-length comparables. | Fair market value applies to partial takings; use of comparable easements is permissible with proper analysis. |
| Are annual payments permissible as compensation for a condemned easement? | Barlow argues annual payments are allowed under §1-26-514(b) and related provisions. | Greencore argues annual payments are not supported by statute and deposit rules. | Annual payments are permissible in principle; remand to determine justification on the facts. |
| Is the removal vs. abandonment issue ripe for judicial decision now? | Barlow seeks removal obligation; Greencore seeks abandonment in place. | Court should defer until abandonment actually occurs; reclamation standards apply then. | Issue not ripe; remand for later consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundin v. State ex rel. L.U. Sheep Co. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of the County of Hot Springs, 790 P.2d 663 (Wy. 1990) (establishes before-after damages and use of §1-26-702(b) principles)
- Reed v. Wadsworth, 553 P.2d 1024 (Wy. 1976) (admissibility of comparable sales with proper foundation)
- Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves, 642 P.2d 423 (Wy. 1982) (before-the-taking rule and arms’-length concerns under pre-Eminent Domain Act context)
- Mayland v. Flitner, 28 P.3d 838 (Wy. 2001) (discusses measure of damages in private road/partial-taking context and relation to §1-26-702(b))
- Frangos, 487 P.2d 802 (Wy. 1962) (recognizes use of comparable sales and adjustments to determine fair market value)