BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE v. CITY OF CHEYENNE
2004 WY 16
85 P.3d 999
Case Number: 03-50 - 03-56
Decided: 03/03/2004
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2003
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE,
Appellant(Intervenor/Plaintiff),
v.
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; EAST WHITNEY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited
Partnership; and WEST WHITNEY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited Partnership,
Appellees(Defendants).
JEAN COTTON; KATHRYNE COTTON and
RUTH COTTON, individually and as owners
of COTTON HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming
Limited Liability Company,
Appellants(Plaintiffs),
v.
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; EAST WHITNEY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited
Partnership; and WEST WHITNEY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited Partnership,
Appellees(Defendants).
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Appellant(Defendant),
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE,
Appellee(Intervenor/Plaintiff).
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE,
Appellant(Intervenor/Plaintiff),
v.
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Appellee(Defendant).
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Appellant(Defendant),
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE,
Appellee(Intervenor/Plaintiff).
JEAN COTTON; KATHRYNE COTTON and
RUTH COTTON, individually and as owners
of COTTON HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming
Limited Liability Company,
Appellants(Plaintiffs),
v.
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Appellee(Defendants).
THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, A WYOMING
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
Appellant(Defendant),
v.
JEAN COTTON; KATHRYNE COTTON and
RUTH COTTON, individually and as owners
of COTTON HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming
Limited Liability Company,
Appellees(Plaintiffs).
Representing Board of County Commissioners of the County of Laramie:
Peter H. Froelicher, Laramie County Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing City of Cheyenne:
W. Perry Dray and Nicholas G.J. Healey of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Jean Cotton; Kathryne Cotton, Ruth Cotton and Cotton Holdings, LLC:
John M. Walker of Hickey, Mackey, Evans & Walker, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing East Whitney Limited Partnership and West Whitney Limited Partnership:
Raymond W. Martin of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before HILL, C.J., and LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and JAMES, D.J.
VOIGT, Justice.
[1] These combined appeals concern an annexation ordinance of the City of Cheyenne. The district court determined that both Laramie County and certain private parties had standing to challenge the ordinance, but found in favor of the City of Cheyenne as to the annexation, itself. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
[2] East Whitney Limited Partnership and West Whitney Limited Partnership (the Whitney partnerships) petitioned the City of Cheyenne (the City) to annex property owned by them known as the Saddle Ridge Subdivision (Saddle Ridge). After conducting public hearings, the City passed an annexation ordinance. Prior to third reading of the ordinance, however, Jean Cotton, Kathryne Cotton and Ruth Cotton, individually and as members of Cotton Holdings, LLC (the Cottons), filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court seeking a declaration that the ordinance was void because Saddle Ridge was separated from the Citys nearest boundary by approximately one-quarter of a mile and was not, therefore, eligible for annexation.1 By stipulation of the parties, the Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County (the County) was allowed to intervene in the action as a plaintiff.
[3] After the annexation ordinance was adopted, both the Cottons and the County filed appeals in the district court pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-409 (LexisNexis 2003) in which they contended that the City had abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and acted not in accordance with law in finding Saddle Ridge eligible for annexation.2 Eventually, all parties sought summary judgment in all three cases (the single declaratory judgment action and the two statutory appeals).3
[4] The district court declined to consolidate the three cases, but did join them for hearing purposes. By a single order entered on February 6, 2003, the district court denied summary judgment to the County and to the Cottons, and granted summary judgment to the City, finding, however, that both the County and the Cottons did have standing to challenge the annexation ordinance in both the declaratory judgment action and in the statutory appeals.
[5] These three district court cases have resulted in seven docketed appeals in this Court. The County separately appealed in both the declaratory judgment action and the statutory appeal, as did the Cottons. The City cross-appealed the standing issue in all three cases. The two appeals in which the County was appellant were consolidated, as were the two appeals in which the Cottons were appellant. All seven appeals were joined for oral argument and all will be addressed in this opinion.
[6] We will summarize and restate the various issues presented by the parties as follows:
1. Did the Cottons and the County have standing to challenge the Citys annexation of Saddle Ridge?
2. Was Saddle Ridge contiguous with or adjacent to the City and, therefore, eligible for annexation pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 2001)?4
[7] Summary judgment motions are governed generally by W.R.C.P. 56, and specifically by the following language found in subsection (c) of the rule:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
W.R.C.P. 56(a) and (b) provide that summary judgment may be appropriate for either the plaintiff or the defendant in a declaratory judgment action. A summary judgment entered in a declaratory judgment action is subject to our usual standard for review of summary judgments. Wyoming Community College Comn v. Casper Community College Dist., 2001 WY 86, 11, 31 P.3d 1242, 1247 (Wyo. 2001); Fontaine v. Board of County Comrs of Park County, 4 P.3d 890, 892 (Wyo. 2000).
[8] This Court reviews a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. Markstein v. Countryside I, L.L.C., 2003 WY 122, 11, 77 P.3d 389, 393 (Wyo. 2003). Where, as here, there are no contentions that genuine issues of material fact exist, our concern is strictly with application of the law. Wyoming Community College Comn, 2001 WY 86, 11, 31 P.3d at 1247. We accord no deference to the district courts conclusions on questions of law. Yeager v. Forbes, 2003 WY 134, 12, 78 P.3d 241, 246 (Wyo. 2003).
An issue of statutory interpretation presents a question of law. Butts v. Wyoming State Bd. of Architects, 911 P.2d 1062, 1065 (Wyo.1996); Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyo. Game and Fish Commn, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993). In interpreting statutes, we primarily determine the legislatures intent. State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732, 736 (Wyo.1983). If the language is sufficiently clear, we do not resort to rules of construction. Id. We apply our general rule that we look to the ordinary and obvious meaning of a statute when the language is unambiguous. Parker Land, 845 P.2d at 1042.
Fontaine, 4 P.3d at 894 (quoting Kirbens v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medicine, 992 P.2d 1056, 1060 (Wyo. 1999)).
If the language is sufficiently clear, there is no need to resort to rules of construction. When the language is not clear or is ambiguous, the court must look to the mischief the statute was intended to cure, the historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public policy of the state, the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous facts and circumstances, making use of the accepted rules of construction to ascertain a legislative intent that is reasonable and consistent.
Fontaine, 4 P.3d at 894-95 (quoting State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732, 736 (Wyo. 1983) and Peterson v. Wyoming Game and Fish Comn, 989 P.2d 113, 118 (Wyo. 1999)).
FOOTNOTES
1Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-37-103 (LexisNexis 2003) states:
Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.
2Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-409 states:
(a) If any landowner in the territory proposed to be annexed or any owner of real property in the annexing city or town, or utility is aggrieved by the acts of the governing body, he may appeal to the district court for a review of the acts or findings thereof.
(b) If the court determines that the action taken was capricious or arbitrary, or if it appears from the evidence that the landowners right in his property is being unwarrantedly invaded or that the governing body abused its discretion, the court shall declare the annexing ordinance void. If the court determines the action of the governing body was proper and valid, it shall sustain the ordinance.
(c) All proceedings to review the findings and the decisions of the governing body shall be brought within ten (10) days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance, and if not brought within that time are forever barred.
3The Whitney partnerships became defendants in the declaratory judgment action by an amended complaint filed August 23, 2002. They were not named as parties in the statutory appeals nor did they file any separate summary judgment motions. Furthermore, inasmuch as they did not file a notice of appeal in this Court, they have been improperly aligned as an appellant in the Citys cross appeals.
4Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402 states, in pertinent part:
(a) Before any territory is eligible for annexation, the governing body of any city or town at a hearing as provided in W.S. 15-1-405 shall find that:
. . .
(iv) The area sought to be annexed is contiguous with or adjacent to the annexing city or town, or the area meets the requirements of W.S. 15-1-407[.]
5In 1983, the County, the City, the South Cheyenne Water and Sewer District, and the Citys Board of Public Utilities entered into an agreement under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1281, to coordinate the treatment of wastewater. The agreement establishes a perimeter area around the city where, under certain conditions, septic systems may not be repaired or replaced and the landowner must obtain city sewer and water service.
6See Cox, 2003 WY 146, 79 P.3d 500 for a very recent analysis of the relationship between Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-409 and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act.
7Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402(b) states:
Contiguity will not be adversely affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private transportation right-of-way, a lake, stream, reservoir or other natural or artificial waterway located between the annexing city or town and the land sought to be annexed.
8See Wyoming Attorney General Opinion No. 83-021, 117-19 (December 19, 1983) ([w]here statutory provisions have made no attempt, as in Wyoming, to define the terms contiguous and adjacent, the courts have generally held such terms to require a touching or actual contact between the annexing municipality and the lands to be annexed. . . . Most courts hold contiguity is more than mere technical touching and requires reasonably substantial physical contact between the territory and the municipality. . . . This concern for something more than mere physical touching is reflected in the multiple requirements of the Wyoming statute . . ..). (Emphasis in original.)
9While the word or is generally used in its disjunctive sense, it may simply indicate interchangeable synonyms. Goglio v. Star Valley Ranch Assn., 2002 WY 94, 27, 48 P.3d 1072, 1082 (Wyo. 2002). One definition of or contained in Websters Third New International Dictionary, supra, at 1585 is the synonymous, equivalent, or substitutive character of two words or phrases <fell over a precipice [or] cliff> . . ..
10Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402(a), for example, in addition to requiring that the land to be annexed be contiguous with or adjacent to the municipality, also requires other specific findings concerning (1) health, safety and welfare; (2) natural, geographical, economical and social development; (3) logical and feasible extension of public services; and (4) due process. Similarly, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402(c) requires the municipality to prepare a report concerning proposed boundaries, infrastructure needs and timetables, and fees and tax estimates.
11The issue of strip or corridor annexation is not presently before this Court. For one courts view that such violate the principles enunciated in Hawks, see City of Middletown, 530 N.E.2d at 905.
Citationizer Summary of Documents Citing This Document
Cite | Name | Level | |
---|---|---|---|
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases | |||
Cite | Name | Level | |
2004 WY 156, 101 P.3d 899, | LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE | Cited | |
2007 WY 43, 154 P.3d 331, | CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF WYOMING | Discussed | |
2007 WY 77, 157 P.3d 933, | CONNIE PLYMALE f/k/a CONNIE DONNELLY V. GAVIN DONNELLY | Discussed | |
2009 WY 143, 221 P.3d 306, | HORSE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a Wyoming Irrigation District; and PHASE 23, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., the WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL | Discussed | |
2010 WY 63, 231 P.3d 873, | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: LARRY MICHAEL JOHNSON, Deceased. KELLIANN JOHNSON V. LARRY M. JOHNSON | Discussed |
Cite | Name | Level | |
---|---|---|---|
Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases | |||
Cite | Name | Level | |
1949 OK 266, 212 P.2d 482, 202 Okla. 249, | CITY OF ADA v. WHITAKER | Discussed at Length | |
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases | |||
Cite | Name | Level | |
1968 WY 7, 436 P.2d 956, | In re Romer | Cited | |
1969 WY 34, 457 P.2d 498, | In re West Laramie | Cited | |
1969 WY 57, 463 P.2d 26, | Scarlett v. Town Council, Town of Jackson, Teton County | Cited | |
1981 WY 15, 623 P.2d 764, | Matter of Various Water Rights in Lake DeSmet Reservoir, Bd. of Control, Docket No. II-77-2-1 | Cited | |
1983 WY 127, 674 P.2d 732, | State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz | Discussed | |
1984 WY 75, 684 P.2d 812, | Attletweedt v. State | Cited | |
1993 WY 10, 845 P.2d 1040, | Parker Land and Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n | Cited | |
1994 WY 148, 888 P.2d 192, | Wyoming Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Woods | Cited | |
1996 WY 26, 911 P.2d 1062, | Butts v. Wyoming State Bd. of Architects | Cited | |
1999 WY 143, 989 P.2d 113, | Peterson v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n | Cited | |
2000 WY 88, 4 P.3d 890, | FONTAINE v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS OF PARK COUNTY | Cited | |
1999 WY 158, 992 P.2d 1056, | Kirbens v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medicine | Cited | |
2000 WY 136, 6 P.3d 1267, | PETRA ENERGY, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE | Cited | |
2001 WY 82, 30 P.3d 47, | WORCHESTER v. STATE | Discussed | |
2001 WY 86, 31 P.3d 1242, | WYOMING COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMISSION v. CASPER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT | Discussed at Length | |
2001 WY 115, 35 P.3d 1207, | KROENLEIN v. EDDINGTON | Discussed at Length | |
2002 WY 94, 48 P.3d 1072, | GOGLIO v. STAR VALLEY RANCH ASSOCIATION | Discussed | |
2003 WY 119, 76 P.3d 1236, | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SEADER | Discussed | |
2003 WY 122, 77 P.3d 389, | MARKSTEIN v. COUNTRYSIDE I, L.L.C. | Discussed | |
2003 WY 134, 78 P.3d 241, | YEAGER v. FORBES | Discussed | |
2003 WY 146, 79 P.3d 500, | COX v. CITY OF CHEYENNE | Discussed at Length |