Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Unresponsive Defendant's Proffered Evidence Barred
by Doctrine of Laches

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Dorsett v. Moore, 61 P.3d 1221 (Wyo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that a defendant who failed to respond to several letters notifying him of his neighbor's intent to repair their shared fencerow was barred from introducing evidence that the new fence was not built on the actual property line by the doctrine of laches.

Background

The plaintiff brought this action to recover one-half of fencing repair costs from his neighboring landowner. Id. at 1222. After several letters notifying the defendant of his intention to implement the necessary repairs went unanswered, the plaintiff hired a fencing contractor to perform the work. Id. The plaintiff then filed suit to recover half of the costs. Id. at 1223. The defendant argued that he was not liable for the repairs because a survey he commissioned after the complaint was filed revealed that the fence was not on the property boundary line in places. Id. The district court held that the defendant was estopped from presenting that evidence and ordered him to pay one-half of the costs, and the defendant appealed. Id.

Arguments

The defendant argued that equitable estoppel was inapplicable because the plaintiff never changed his position in reliance on the defendant's conduct, since he was going to repair the fence regardless of the defendant's reply. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court concluded that the unspecified type of estoppel applied by the lower court was a proper application of the doctrine of laches, which bars a party from asserting a claim or defense when the party inexcusably delayed bringing its claim to the prejudice of its opponent. Id. at 1224. The court held that "[h]aving slumbered on his rights, [the defendant] was in no position to complain about [the plaintiff's] resolution of the problem or the placement of the fence where it had always been," and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment. Id.

The case was decided on January 17, 2003.