Here's one that's holding over from 2022, but we wanted to make sure to post because it's a good reminder that when you settle a case, you settle the case.
Wyoming is one of those jurisdictions that has one of those "I want it back" provisions, where if property is not actually used for X years after it is acquired by the government, the owner may ask for it to be returned. In Wyoming, the term is 10 years:
If a public entity acquires property in fee simple title under this chapter but fails to make substantial use of the property for a period of ten (10) years, there is a presumption that the property is no longer needed for a public purpose and the previous owner or his successor may apply to the court to request that the property be returned to the previous owner or his successor upon repayment of the amount originally received for the property in the condemnation action. A public entity may rebut the presumption created under this subsection by showing good cause for the delay in using the property.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-801(d).
Back in the day, Colton and the Town got into a beef over land apparently needed (or wanted) for the municipal airport. Colton sued for inverse condemnation, and "and sought to prevent the Town from condeming any portion of the property." After a bench trial, the court was ready to lay down the law: it rejected Colton's arguments and concluded that the Town could take 30 acres of property after a determination of compensation.
But before the comp hearing took place, peace prevailed and the parties settled. The Town would pay an agreed-upon amount and would acquire the 30 acres from Colton. And critically, the settlement agreement "contained several terms releasing the Town from all past, present, and future claims related to the disputed 30.17 acres."
Ten years passed. Apparently, the Town didn't make use of the property and Colton wanted it back. He sued, seeking to reclaim it. The trial court granted the Town summary judgment.
In Colton v. Town of Dubois, No. S-22-0078 (Nov. 3, 2022), the Wyoming Supreme Court agreed, concluding that by executing the settlement agreement, Colton waived his statutory rights, even though yes, the Town acknowledged it had not used the property for the airport. (This is a true waiver situation (and not the more usual forfeiture where someone's inaction is deemed to have surrendered their rights), since Colton knowingly gave up his right to reclaim.)
The court first accepted that the Town acquired Colton's property in a way that triggered the statute because it was acquired under the threat of condemnation. Next, the court concluded the statute was in force at the time of the settlement, and therefore Colton is assumed to have known about it. The court also concluded that Colton intended to relinquish his statutory rights because the agreement unambiguously says so in the "Statement of Purpose" and "Release" provisions. There, the agreement notes the agreement is to resolve all claims, including future claims:
The stated purpose of the settlement agreement is to resolve any claims the parties “may have in the future arising out of or in any way related to the above taking[.]” This purpose is further reflected in the terms of the settlement agreement. In multiple sections Mr. Colton agreed to release the Town from “any and all” claims. The settlement agreement also definitively states “Colton and Dubois hereby do, fully, finally, absolutely and forever settle any and all claims, disputes and differences that now exist, [and] may exist in the future . . . with respect to the taking[.]” The release provisions are broad but nonetheless unequivocal in expressing Mr. Colton’s intent to waive “any and all” future claims, “related in any way” to the condemnation action, which would include any claims he had pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-801(d). See Moayedi v. Interstate 35/Chisam Rd., L.P., 438 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. 2014) (“Just because the waiver is all encompassing does not mean that it is unclear or vague.”). Thus, the settlement agreement undisputedly manifests the intent necessary to satisfy the third element of waiver.
Slip op. at 6.
Finally, the court noted that the waiver is in accordance with public policy (an element of waiver under Wyoming law). We like the freedom to contract, and we like settlements, the court concluded.
So what lessons can we take from this? When you settle, you settle. Done. Pau. Finis. Unless you want to hold on to some rights (in which case you don't agree to language that waives your rights so broadly). But don't be surprised if the other side really insists on that language. And that points to another option: if you want to retain your rights, don't settle. The waiver of future rights is just one of those things that parties have to assess the risk of when they are deciding on fight or flight.
Colton v. Town of Dubois, No. S-22-0078 (Wyo. Nov. 3, 2022)
