Fines imposed in Tipi Retreat case

On November 26, 2024, District Court Judge, Bill Simpson, entered an Order Following Bench Trial, which sets forth the Court’s ruling upon the issues that were before the Court at the Hearing held in the Fifth Judicial District at Hot Springs County, on June 17-18, 2024. The Order brings to a close, at least at the District Court level, the dispute between plaintiff’s Michele and Michael Stevens, doing business as The Tipi Retreat, L.L.C., and defendant, Hot Springs County. The recent order imposes a total fine in the sum of $40,250 upon The Tipi Retreat and its owners.

The many issues between the parties first arose in May of 2021, when the County discovered that the business was being operated on Coyote Run Road in Hot Springs County. The Stevens’ had created a business, by which they erected several tipis upon their property, which was located within an area designated for agricultural use. The tipis were marketed through several online services, which book reservations for overnight stays at various types of properties, such as apartments, homes, and campgrounds.

When the County discovered the business use of the property, without there having been issued a change of use by the County to a commercial classification, the County notified the Stevens’ of the non-compliance with County Land Use provisions, and then assisted the Stevens’ with an application for a land use change, which would allow the business to be legally operated. Pursuant to County policy, the County allowed the Stevens’ to continue to operate the business - even though it was non-conforming - while the application for a change of use wound its way through the land use system.

After several delays in the processing of the land use change application, the Board of County Commissioners ultimately denied the requested change, on December 21, 2021. The Steven’s disagreed with the Board’s denial, and pursued a review by the District Court of the Board’s action. While the court case was proceeding, the Stevens’ continued to market their business, and booked a number of overnight rentals of the various tipis, constructed upon their property.

In October of 2022, the District Court ruled that the County had legally adopted land use regulations, that were in effect, and applicable to the property owned by the Stevens. Further, the Court ruled that the County’s land use regulations were enforceable by the County, as against the commercial use of the property by the Stevens’.

In May of 2023, the District Court remanded the case to the County Commissioners, directing the Board to make specific findings, upon which the County was relying in its denial of the application for a change of use. Thereafter, in August of 2023, the County Commissioners entered their specific finings, and again denied the change of use request.

In May of 2024, the District Court affirmed the County’s denial of the change of use, and the County then sought a ruling from the Court upon the issue of an appropriate fine to be imposed upon the Stevens’ for continuing to operate the business after the original date of denial of their change of use application – December 21, 2021. That issue was tried before the Court, as a Bench Trial, on June 17-18, 2024.

After receiving and considering several legal briefs filed by the parties, which set forth the parties’ position on the legal and factual issues raised at the trial, the Court has now entered its Order.

By Statute in Wyoming, and pursuant to a similar County Ordinance in Hot Springs County, the District Court has authority, in matters such as this, to impose a fine upon a party found to be in violation of a land use regulation. Although the imposition of a fine is mandatory, the specific amount of the fine is left to the discretion of the Court – up to a fine of $750.00 per day, for each day of non-compliance.

Both before the trial, and during trial, the County put forth several theories upon which they requested the Court to enter a fine, and which would have amounted to several different total fine amounts. At the conclusion of the trial, however, the County took the position that they were seeking a total fine of $362,250. That amount would cover each day the business was operated after the date the change of use was originally denied by the County, and imposes a fine upon each of the individual tipis located upon the subject property.

The Steven’s argued that no fine should be imposed by the Court, however, any fine the Court should impose should be a single daily fine upon the operation of the business as a whole - and not upon the individual tipis - which would greatly reduce the amount of any fine.

In considering the issue of a fine, the Court specifically noted that, although the Stevens’ did not agree with the County’s denial of their requested land use change, the Steven’s did not seek an Order from the Court staying the County’s action, but instead, they intentionally continued to operate the business - knowing that the use of the property for that purpose was not allowed by the County. Moreover, while the Court found the operation of the business to be willful, the Court did not find the arguments of the Stevens’ to be frivolous or ill-conceived.

Additionally, the Court specifically noted that, while the Court had previously upheld the County’s action in denying the land use change, the Court had done so on very narrow grounds. While the County had put forth a number of theories upon which the County took its action, the Court found that most of those theories were not applicable in this instance, and that the County had acted in an arbitrary manner in denying the land use change on those grounds. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the County’s action upon but a single legal theory.

After entering a finding that the business had continued to operate for a total of 230 days – from March 1, 2022 through November 5, 2022 (the dates upon which the Stevens’ operated three tipis, which they had added to the property after the date the land use change was originally denied) – and after determining that a fine could not be imposed upon each individual tipi – as had been argued by the County – the Court imposed a fine of $175.00 per day for each of those 230 days. The total fine imposed is, thus, in the sum of $40,250. The Court, further, directed that the fine shall be paid by the Stevens’ at the rate of $500 per month, for eighteen months.

Additionally, the District Court granted the County’s request to enter an injunction against the Stevens’, which prevents them from operating a commercial enterprise upon the subject property, unless and until, a change is made by the County, at their request, which would allow a business to be lawfully operated upon the property.

After the issues were raised in this matter, the County amended its land use regulations to allow for the renting of a single unit for short-term rentals in areas designated for agricultural use. Due to that change, the Court’s Injunction does not prevent the Stevens’ from renting one of their tipis as a short-term rental.

While this closes the matter before the District Court, each of the parties may pursue an appeal of the Court’s ruling if they so choose.