Goodman v. Voss
2011 Wyo. LEXIS 35
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Related private road condemnation actions between neighboring landowners in Albany County, Wyoming; Voss seeks private road under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-101; Goodman and Stevens challenged; Board located a private road route after viewing multiple routes; Voss property allegedly landlocked; prior Wyoming Supreme Court decision (Voss I) held BLM road insufficient and that deputy routes could be reconsidered; subsequent remand involved new routes (Creek Road, Goodman Road) and a temporary pendente lite access granted; final Board order extended access through Goodman property and required a cattle guard; court proceedings challenged timeliness, res judicata/collateral estoppel, and constitutional/takings considerations; this Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for entry of new order consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Goodman’s petition for review | Goodman timely filed within 30 days of service | Vosses argued untimely under 12.04(a) | Petition timely filed; service on Dec 16, 2009; filed Jan 15, 2010 is within 30 days |
| Res judicata and collateral estoppel bar Goodman’s relitigation of landlock and good-faith questions | Vosses argued finality of prior determinations bars relitigation | Issues decided in Voss I preclude relitigation | Collateral estoppel and law-of-the-case apply to landlock and good-faith questions; Goodman barred from relitigating those issues |
| Board’s focus on damage to Vosses’ property rather than Goodman’s in locating the road | Board failed to minimize damage to Goodman; location extended into Goodman property | Board followed statutory directive to minimize damage overall | Board’s extension beyond recommended location violated statute; remand to limit road to viewers’ recommended location |
| Board’s authority to allow a cattle guard at the entry | Board improperly used Elk Horn Ranch reasoning to permit cattle guard | Cattle guards allowed under statute when supported by facts | Cattle guard permissible; factual findings supported the decision; affirmed |
| Board’s denial of costs under Rule 68 | Vosses offered settlement; should recover costs if more favorable than offer | Offers not easily ascertainable; final order not more favorable | Rule 68 applicability debated; denial affirmed on basis that final outcome did not favor the Vosses over offers; remand for recomputation of damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Voss v. Albany County Commissioners, 2003 WY 94, 74 P.3d 714, 74 P.3d 714 (Wyo. 2003) (landlocked determination; remand for alternative route; good faith finding implicit in pass)
- Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 2006 WY 69, 135 P.3d 598, 135 P.3d 598 (Wyo. 2006) (public road status inquiry; law of the case limitations)
- Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. Murray, 811 P.2d 287, 811 P.2d 287 (Wyo. 1991) (private road taking must be reasonable)
- Wagstaff v. Sublette County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2002 WY 123, 53 P.3d 79, 53 P.3d 79 (Wyo. 2002) (private road statute aims for reasonable access)
- Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69, 28 P.3d 838, 28 P.3d 838 (Wyo. 2001) (reliance on good-faith and reasonableness; not necessary to pursue common law)
- Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882, 4 P.3d 882 (Wyo. 2000) (landowner not required to pursue other avenues before private road action)
- Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co. (note cites another Reidy discussion), 135 P.3d 598 (Wyo. 2006) (public road status and private road action interplay)