268 P.3d 258
Wyo.2012Background
- In 2008, the Teton County Commission approved a Parcel Boundary Adjustment Application for four lots in Wyoming.
- Appellees sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision in 2008–2009.
- Appellants Hirshberg and Menolascino purchased two of the lots in late 2008/2009 without intervening in the review.
- In February 2011, the district court reversed the Commission’s decision (the four lots merged).
- Hirshberg and Menolascino separately sought to intervene post-judgment to pursue an appeal and were denied; all appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied intervention for appeal. | Hirshberg/Menolascino contend timely post-judgment intervention potential. | District court correctly found untimely intervention and discretion to deny. | Yes; denial affirmed. |
| Whether non-parties may appeal a district court’s final order. | Non-parties should be allowed to appeal to vindicate their interests. | Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.07 limits appeals to parties. | No; non-parties cannot appeal; appeals dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Whether post-judgment intervention for appeal is proper. | Post-judgment intervention should be permitted if timely. | Timeliness and discretion govern post-judgment intervention. | Affirmed; district court’s denial of post-judgment intervention was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether merits issues (merger, substantial evidence) are properly before the court on these appeals. | Appeals should address all asserted merits issues. | Court need not reach merits given standing and intervention rulings. | Not addressed; court disposed of case on intervention/standing grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Gunter, 2007 WY 151 (Wyo. 2007) (standard for intervention of right; appellate review of legal questions only)
- Masinter v. Markstein, 45 P.3d 237 (Wyo. 2002) (four conditions for intervention and timeliness considerations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colley, 871 P.2d 191 (Wyo. 1994) (fourth condition timeliness interpreted; totality of circumstances)
- Concerned Citizens of Spring Creek Ranch v. Tips Up, LLC., 185 P.3d 34 (Wyo. 2008) (timeliness factors in intervention analysis)