Wyoming Supreme Court orders decision in Laramie unpermitted building case

A protracted legal fight over an unpermitted storage shop in Laramie reached the Wyoming Supreme Court, which on December 15 instructed Albany County District Court Judge Misha Westby to make a definitive ruling after years of stalled negotiations and split decisions. The case centers on property owners Timothy Hale and Sonja Ringen, who began constructing a storage building on city property in September 2019 without first obtaining a building permit.

City officials issued a Red Tag to stop work on September 13, 2019, followed by a zoning violation letter on September 16 and a cease and desist served by police. Construction continued. The landowners submitted incomplete plans on September 25, 2019 and again on November 25, 2019. The city denied the application because the form was not initialed next to a promise not to begin work before a permit was issued. The landowners said they could not initial that line because they had already begun construction.

The building lacks plumbing, sewer and heating ventilation and air conditioning. Safety and code compliance became focal points of dispute, with the city citing concerns about the electrical system and public safety. The landowners retained a licensed civil engineer who, according to court filings, opined the building “does not pose a risk to the public health or safety.” In March 2020 the city sued for an injunction, and a court order paused construction pending negotiated compliance. Those negotiations failed. In May 2022 a judge ordered the stop to allow city inspection and warned the structure might have to be torn down, though the judge expressed “the court’s hope” that demolition would not be necessary.

By September 2024 the city said it could not permit the building without partial or full disassembly to allow proper inspections, and judges noted the prospect of substantial fines under the $750 per day maximum. One judge described the fines as potentially “egregious.” On March 4 this year Judge Westby denied both the city’s request to compel compliance and the landowners’ request to let the building stand. The Supreme Court reversed that posture, telling the district court to resolve the dispute rather than leave the parties locked in place. As Justice Bridget Hill wrote, “Without including irrelevant details, it would be fair to characterize the significant point of conflict as the city requesting disassembly or demolition of all or part of the storage building and (the landowners) objecting to those requests.” Hill added that “the record reveals two parties stubbornly entrenched in the rightness of their position,” and instructed the lower court to “consider the parties’ evidence and arguments and then let the adversarial process do its job.”

For residents, the case underscores how enforcement of local codes can play out over years and strain municipal resources, while exposing property owners to large potential fines. The decision to push the matter back to district court also highlights the judiciary’s role in resolving municipal enforcement disputes and the importance of clear rulings for predictability in local land use and development. Civic engagement at city hearings and council meetings remains a primary avenue for residents to monitor how the city enforces codes and allocates enforcement resources in future disputes.