Alto Township v. Mendenhall , 2011 S.D. LEXIS 112 ( 2011 )

#25933-r-GAS
2011 S.D. 54IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
ALTO TOWNSHIP Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
KEITH MENDENHALL and
LISA MENDENHALL, Defendants and Appellants.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
ROBERTS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE JON S. FLEMMER
Judge
* * * *
KAY F. NIKOLAS,
Sisseton, South Dakota Attorney for plaintiff
and appellee.
GORDON P. NIELSEN
Delaney, Vander Linden,
Delaney, Nielsen, & Sannes, P.C.
Sisseton, South Dakota Attorneys for defendants
and appellants.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON AUGUST 23, 2011
OPINION FILED 09/07/11
#25933
SEVERSON, Justice
[¶1.] On August 20, 2010, the trial court issued an order requiring Keith
and Lisa Mendenhall (the Mendenhalls) to comply with the provisions of a county
resolution before erecting and maintaining a fence or gate across a section-line
highway stretching between two sections of the Mendenhalls’ property. After the
Mendenhalls installed a fence and gate across the section-line highway, Alto
Township brought a motion for contempt citation, alleging that the Mendenhalls
failed to comply with the trial court’s order. The trial court found the Mendenhalls
in contempt of court. We reverse.
Background
[¶2.] Keith and Lisa Mendenhall are ranchers who own property in Sections
16 and 17 of Alto Township in Roberts County. A section-line highway separates
the two parcels of land. 1 The Mendenhalls’ barn and cattle watering facilities are
located in Section 17 but their cattle’s winter pasture is located in Section 16. The
Mendenhalls have historically fenced across the section-line highway during the
late fall and winter months in order to join the adjacent pastures. Gates were
installed at those points where the fence crossed the section-line highway.
[¶3.] On October 9, 2009, Alto Township filed an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief against the Mendenhalls. It sought a declaration that the section-
line highway between Sections 16 and 17 of Alto Township was an improved
1. SDCL 31-18-1 established a public highway along every section line in the
state except where some portion has been “vacated or relocated by the lawful
action of some authorized public officer, board, or tribunal.”
-1-
#25933
highway as described in SDCL chapter 31-25. Alto Township further requested an
injunction requiring the Mendenhalls to remove the fences that extended across the
section-line highway. 2
[¶4.] While the matter was pending, the Mendenhalls filed a petition with
the Roberts County Board of Commissioners pursuant to SDCL 31-25-1, seeking
permission to place fences across the section-line highway. 3 On December 8, 2009,
the Roberts County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution #09-41 (Resolution
09-41). The resolution authorized Keith Mendenhall and his successors to erect and
2. Private citizens cannot lawfully obstruct improved section-line highways
absent legal authority to do so. Douville v. Christensen, 2002 S.D. 33, ¶ 11,
641 N.W.2d 651, 654 (citing Lawrence v. Ewert, 21 S.D. 580, 114 N.W. 709,
710 (1908); K & E Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Mayer, 330 N.W.2d 529, 532 (S.D.
1983)). See SDCL 31-25-1.1 (permitting the placement of fences on a section
line that has not been “altered from its natural state in any way for the
purpose of facilitating vehicular passage,” provided that gates are installed to
permit suitable public access).
3. Under certain circumstances, SDCL 31-25-1 gives the board of county
commissioners the authority to authorize the erection of fences across
section-line highways. SDCL 31-25-1 provides:
The board of county commissioners of any county having
within its boundaries, any county, township, or section-
line highway not included in § 31-25-1.1 extending or
running through or across grazing land, may, upon
petition, signed by a majority of the adjacent landowners
along the portion of such highway involved, and after a
hearing is had, on notice mailed by the county auditor to
all of said landowners, not less than ten days before such
hearing, authorize such landowners to erect and maintain
fences across such highway. However, the board of county
commissioners shall require the erection of gates or
grates, or both, in such fences at points designated by the
board, so that the public may have access to the highway.
-2-
#25933
maintain fences across the section-line highway, provided that he “installs and
maintains a sixteen foot cattle guard (auto grate) and that he installs and
maintains pipe gates of an additional thirty-foot width with reflectors mounted on
the pipes of the gates, so that the public will have reasonable vehicular and
agricultural equipment access to the roadway lying within the section line
highway.”
[¶5.] On August 20, 2010, a trial was held on Alto Township’s action for
declaratory and injunctive relief. In a judgment and order entered August 30, 2010,
the trial court declared that the section line between Section 16 and 17 was an
improved section-line highway. The trial court further ordered that the
Mendenhalls were enjoined from erecting and maintaining fences or gates across
the section-line highway unless the fences and gates met the criteria of Resolution
09-41.
[¶6.] Following entry of the trial court’s order, the Mendenhalls ordered two
sixteen foot cattle guards from Hilltop Fencing, a company that regularly
manufactures cattle guards. After the cattle guards were manufactured, the
Mendenhalls installed them across the section-line highway. The cattle guards
measured sixteen feet, four inches in total width with just over ten feet of width in
the area where traffic passes over. 4 The Mendenhalls also installed pipe gates of an
4. SDCL 31-25-5 defines the minimum dimensional requirements of livestock
guards extending across section-line highways. SDCL 31-25-5 provides:
All livestock guards shall be at least ten feet wide on the ground.
In addition, at one side of such livestock guard there shall be
(continued . . .)
-3-
#25933
additional thirty-foot width across the section-line highway. Warning signs and
reflectors were mounted on the pipes of the gates in accordance with Resolution 09-
41.
[¶7.] Alto Township brought a motion for contempt citation against the
Mendenhalls on November 9, 2010, alleging that the Mendenhalls willfully and
contumaciously failed to comply with the trial court’s August 30, 2010 order. While
the matter was pending, the Roberts County Board of Commissioners considered
the issue of whether Mendenhalls complied with Resolution 09-41 at a regularly
scheduled meeting on January 18, 2011. By resolution duly passed on January 18,
2011, the Roberts County Board of Commissioners determined that the
Mendenhalls had complied with Resolution 09-41. The January 18, 2011 resolution
authorized the Mendenhalls to “maintain the existing cattle guards, gates, and
fences, as they are currently constructed” across the section-line highway.
[¶8.] The trial court heard Alto Township’s motion for contempt citation on
January 24, 2011. The trial court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law
and order on February 15, 2011. Despite the Roberts County Board of
Commissioner’s determination that the Mendenhalls complied with Resolution 09-
41, the trial court found that the Mendenhalls “willfully and contumaciously failed
and refused to comply with the trial court’s order by installing cattle guards that
________________________
(. . . continued)
provided or constructed a gate, at least twenty feet wide to
accommodate the passage of teams, and wider vehicles.
The cattle guards the Mendenhalls installed on the section-line highway
complied with the provisions of SDCL 31-25-5.
-4-
#25933
did not comply with the width requirements of the resolution.” The trial court
determined that Resolution 09-41 required the Mendenhalls to install cattle guards
that were sixteen feet in width in the area where traffic passed over. Because the
cattle guards installed by the Mendenhalls had a width of only ten feet in the area
where traffic passed over, the trial court concluded that the Mendenhalls were in
contempt of its August 30, 2010 order. The trial court ordered that the
Mendenhalls could purge themselves of the contempt citation by removing the
cattle guards by June 1, 2011. If the Mendenhalls desired to maintain fences and
gates across the section-line highway, the cattle guards had to be “sixteen feet in
width as measured on the ground where vehicles will pass over them. . . .”
Standard of Review
[¶9.] “‘We will not set aside a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous.’” Keller v. Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 8, 660 N.W.2d 619, 622 (quoting
Harksen v. Peska, 2001 S.D. 75, ¶ 9, 630 N.W.2d 98, 101). However, “[w]e review
conclusions of law under a de novo standard, with no deference to the trial court’s
conclusions of law.” Harksen, 2001 S.D. 75, ¶ 9, 630 N.W.2d at 101 (citing Mid-
Century Ins. Co. v. Lyon, 1997 S.D. 50, ¶ 4, 562 N.W.2d 888, 890; Shedd v. Lamb,
1996 S.D. 117, ¶ 17, 553 N.W.2d 241, 244).
[¶10.] “The appropriate remedy or punishment for contempt of court lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 8, 660 N.W.2d
at 622 (citing Harksen, 2001 S.D. 75, ¶ 10, 630 N.W.2d at 101). “An abuse of
discretion is ‘discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by and clearly
-5-
#25933
against, reason and evidence.”’ State v. Big Crow, 2009 S.D. 87, ¶ 7, 773 N.W.2d
810, 812 (quoting State v. Machmuller, 2001 S.D. 82, ¶ 9, 630 N.W.2d 495, 498).
Analysis
[¶11.] Whether the trial court erred by finding the Mendenhalls
in contempt of court.
[¶12.] “The four elements of contempt are (1) existence of an order; (2)
knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply with the order; and (4) willful or
contumacious disobedience of the order.” Muenster v. Muenster, 2009 S.D. 23, ¶ 35,
764 N.W.2d 712, 721 (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 451 N.W.2d 293, 295 (S.D. 1990)).
In this case, the Mendenhalls acknowledge the existence of the trial court’s order
dated August 30, 2010. The Mendenhalls further concede that they had knowledge
of the order and the ability to comply with it. They dispute only the forth element of
the test. The Mendenhalls argue that they did not willfully or contumaciously
disobey the trial court’s order because the terms of the order were ambiguous.
[¶13.] We have said that ‘“[t]o form the basis for a subsequent finding of
contempt, an order must state the details of compliance in such clear, specific and
unambiguous terms that the person to whom it is directed will know exactly what
duties or obligations are imposed upon [him or her].”’ Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 10,
660 N.W.2d at 622 (quoting Harksen, 2001 S.D. 75, ¶ 17, 630 N.W.2d at 102). Here,
the trial court’s order enjoined the Mendenhalls from erecting and maintaining
fences and gates across the section-line highway between Sections 16 and 17 of Alto
Township unless the fences and gates met the criteria of Resolution 09-41.
Resolution 09-41 required that the Mendenhalls install cattle guards that measure
sixteen feet. The resolution did not define whether the total width of the cattle
-6-
#25933
guards was to measure sixteen feet or whether the area of the cattle guards that
vehicles could pass over was to measure sixteen feet. In light of this ambiguity, a
reasonable person could conclude that the Mendenhalls complied with the trial
court’s order by installing two cattle guards that measured sixteen feet in total
width.
[¶14.] Alto Township contends that the requirement that the cattle guards
measure sixteen feet where vehicles pass over is inferred from the intent of
Resolution 09-41, which is to allow the public “reasonable vehicular and
agricultural equipment access to the roadway. . . .” However, the Mendenhalls
installed pipe gates with a thirty-foot width in addition to the two sixteen-foot cattle
guards. The total width of the sixteen-foot cattle guards and the thirty-foot pipe
gates allowed the public reasonable access to the roadway. Indeed, the Roberts
County Board of Commissioners, which initially passed Resolution 09-41,
determined that the Mendenhalls fully complied with Resolution 09-41.
[¶15.] Had it been the intent of the Roberts County Board of Commissioners
to require the Mendenhalls to install cattle guards that measure sixteen feet where
vehicles pass over, Resolution 09-41 could have expressly so provided. In the
absence of such a clear expression of intent, the trial court’s order cannot serve as
the basis for a finding of contempt. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s
finding of contempt was clearly erroneous.
[¶16.] Reversed.
[¶17.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP and ZINTER,
Justices, and MEIERHENRY, Retired Justice, concur.
-7-
#25933
[¶18.] WILBUR, Justice, did not participate.
-8-