King v. Board of County Commissioners
2010 WY 154
Wyo.2010Background
- Kings and Hansen filed declaratory-judgment complaints in December 2005 seeking to determine whether Bunker Road was a properly created county road and whether it had been vacated or abandoned.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment in 2008 in favor of Fremont County, concluding Bunker Road was created in 1913 and had not been formally vacated, so it remained a county road.
- Hansen intervened in the proceedings; the issues overlapped with Kings’ claims regarding the road’s creation and status.
- Kings argued records were not properly recorded and that the road was never created; Fremont County contended the road’s creation was valid and that constructive notice could be inferred from the road book and statutory scheme.
- The district court identified two remaining issues for trial: actual notice of Bunker Road to the Kings/Hansen and whether they were bona fide purchasers without notice of the easement.
- On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment and the dismissal of the remaining claims, with a concurrence-dissent by Burke, J. (and a partial concurrence/dissent by Meeker).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bunker Road was properly established in 1913 | Kings contends the 1912-1913 process failed to satisfy recording requirements. | Commission asserts proper establishment under statutory procedure and records show establishment. | Bunker Road was created; issues for trial remain on notice and bona fide purchaser status. |
| Whether Meeker governs dismissal of the Kings/Hansen claims | Meeker supports dismissal where no record instrument showing the highway existed. | Meeker is distinguishable and should not control here due to statutory recording duty. | Meeker-based dismissal affirmed; district court decision upholding dismissal on that basis remains valid. |
| Whether Kings/Hansen may challenge the partial summary judgment on timeliness/appeal issues | Appellants contest timeliness of appeal as to the partial summary judgment. | Commission argues no timely appeal was filed for the partial judgment. | Court addresses timeliness and proceeds to evaluate merits; otherwise, issues considered in context of overall appeal. |
| Whether Bunker Road remains a public county road and may encumber title yet to be determined | Kings/Hansen contend the road is not a county road and should not cloud title. | Road created and not vacated; continues as county road; title is clouded by the easement. | Bunker Road remains a county road under law; the district court’s status determination is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeager v. Forbes, 78 P.3d 241 (Wyo. 2003) (public-records reliance and road status principles in road-vacation context)
- State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Meeker, 294 P.2d 603 (Wyo. 1956) (measures on recording and eminent-domain conveyance impact on subsequent purchasers)
- Board of County Comm'rs v. White, 547 P.2d 1195 (Wyo. 1976) (public road rights and mandates to maintain open roads absent proper vacation procedures)
- Kern v. Deerwood Ranch, 528 P.2d 910 (Wyo. 1974) (recording duties and public notice in road matters)
- Lakewood v. Mavromatis, 817 P.2d 90 (Colo. 1991) (dedication by plat/recordation creates public highways with notice considerations)