Gregory D. Lavitt and Debra C. Lavitt
2015 WY 57
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Stephens sought condemnation of a private road to reach his land-locked property via a route across the Lavitts’ land.
- The district court previously concluded Stephens held a valid easement but forfeited it due to his own misuse.
- Prior private road proceedings involved a Board of County Commissioners; the Lavitts were later dismissed from the Board action.
- After easement termination, Stephens filed a district court private road action proposing the same route across the Lavitts’ property.
- Lavitts moved for Rule 11 sanctions and for costs/fees under Rule 41(d); the district court denied both.
- This appeal addresses whether the district court abused its discretion in denying costs under Rule 41(d) and sanctions under Rule 11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(d) costs were available. | Lavitts contend Rule 41(d) applies to the Board action. | Stephens argues Board action is not a court, so Rule 41(d) doesn’t apply. | No abuse; Rule 41(d) not applicable to an agency action. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were warranted. | Lavitts claim filing violated Rule 11 by improper purpose or frivolity. | Stephens and counsel acted in good faith; not frivolous under existing law. | No abuse; no Rule 11(b) violation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayland v. Flitner, 28 P.3d 838 (Wy. 2001) (good faith essential prerequisite for private road actions; bad faith precludes action)
- Stephens v. Lavitt, 239 P.3d 634 (Wy. 2010) (context for easement forfeiture and private road posture)
- Voss v. Albany Cnty. Comm’rs, 74 P.3d 722 (Wy. 2003) (good faith requirement maintained despite statute changes)
- Wagstaff v. Sublette Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 53 P.3d 79 (Wy. 2002) (private road action procedures and good faith)
- Dunning v. Ankney, 936 P.2d 61 (Wy. 1997) (good faith requirement for private road actions)