author: KITE, Justice.

text:
    2004 WY 19
    C.A. “Al” SNELL; R.M. “Bob” Wagner; and John Trierweiler, Appellants (Defendants), v. JOHNSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee (Plaintiff). Wayne T. Voss, Stan Wostenberg, Jane Wostenberg and David Hamilton, Petitioners, v. Washakie County School District No. 1, Respondent.
    Nos. 03-121, 03-151.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    March 8, 2004.

      Representing Appellants, C.A. “Al” Snell, R.M. “Bob” Wagner, John Trierweiler, Wayne T. Voss, Stan Wostenberg, Jane Wos-tenberg and David Hamilton: John R. Hursh of Central Wyoming Law Associates, River-ton, Wyoming.
    Representing Appellee Johnson County School District No. 1: Timothy J. Kirven of Kirven & Kirven, Buffalo, Wyoming.
    Representing Appellee Washakie County School District No. 1: William R. Shelledy, Jr. and Edward G. Luhm of Scott, Shelledy & Luhm, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.
    Before GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.; and STEBNER, D.J.
   KITE, Justice.

[¶1] These cases involve challenges to the use of funds obtained from the sale of bonds to construct school facilities and present questions concerning the effect of our opinions in State v. Campbell County School District, 2001 WY 19, 19 P.3d 518 (Wyo.2001) (Campbell II) and State v. Campbell County School District, 2001 WY 90, 32 P.3d 325 (Wyo.2001) (Campbell III), and the resulting statutory changes on pending school bond issues. The cases were consolidated for purposes of argument and the district court in each case certified two questions to this Court for resolution. While those questions are slightly different in each case, at bottom they ask 1) whether the challengers’ claims are barred as untimely, and 2) whether the bond proceeds can be used to fund certain school facilities. We hold the challengers are not barred from raising issues related to the use of the funds. However, we further hold neither the Campbell II nor Campbell III decisions, nor the revised statutes, which became effective after the bond elections, have any effect upon the school districts’ authority to use the proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by the elections.

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS:

[¶ 2] Snell v. Johnson County School District No. 1, No. 03-121:

1. Are defendants barred by W.S. § 22-21-107 from initiating in 2003, a contest of the November 6, 2001 bond election in Johnson County?
2. Can Johnson County School District No. 1 use the bond proceeds from a November 6, 2001 bond election to fund local enhancements in a pipeline project?

[¶ 3] Voss v. Washakie County School District No. 1, No. 03-151:

1. Are Petitioner’s claims barred, by initiating in April of 2003, a challenge of the November 7, 2000, bond election in Washakie County, by application of W.S. § 22-21-107; W.S. § 21-13-706(b)(vi); W.S. § 21-13-706(c); by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and waiver or the applicable statute of limitations, or by their failure to join necessary and/or proper parties to the action?
2. Can Washakie County School District No. 1 use the bond proceeds from the November 7, 2000, bond election to fund local enhancements in a “pipeline project”?

FACTS

[¶ 4] From 1995 to the present, the state’s public school finance system has undergone significant change. This Court has addressed problems of inequality in the financing of public schools in three separate opinions, Campbell County School District v. State, 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo.1995) (Campbell I), Campbell II, and Campbell III. In response to those opinions, the legislature enacted many new statutes and changed the manner in which school operations and construction are funded. This process of change has occurred over the last nine years and is continuing. We think it is safe to say that change will inevitably continue to occur into the future as the legislature and the school districts struggle to develop the most effective and equitable public school finance system possible. These cases demonstrate the problems the school districts face because their work of providing education to the state’s children must go on amid these times of change.

[¶ 5] Historically, school construction was financed entirely through property taxes and the funds available varied widely from county to county as a result of the differing assessed values of property in each county. Twenty-four years ago, this Court held that system violated the state’s constitution and mandated “statewide availability from total state resources for building construction or contribution to school buildings on a parity for all school districts.” Washakie County School District No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310, 337 (Wyo.1980). In Campbell I, we reviewed the legislative changes made in response to the Washakie opinion and found that combination of loans and grants had not adequately addressed the deficient public school facilities identified by the state. We declared that system unconstitutional. Campbell I, 907 P.2d at 1275. In response to that opinion, the Wyoming Department of Education financed a study to score all buildings in each school district based on various categories of capital construction needs. This report, generally identified as Wyoming Department of Education Statewide Schools Facilities Assessment, identified certain schools in immediate need of capital construction. In 1999, the legislature acted to address the constitutional infirmities of the school capital construction statutes and enacted Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-15-111 (Lexis 1999), which established a process whereby school districts could receive state funding for capital construction of school facilities. That statute required the districts to certify they had used ninety percent of their bonding capacity authorized by art. 16, § 5 of the Wyoming constitution before being eligible to receive state funding. In Campbell II, we concluded that § 21-15-111 was unconstitutional because it again resulted in wealth-based disparities in school construction financing. Id. at 556-566. As a result of that decision, in 2002 the legislature completely overhauled the statutory scheme for capital construction of public schools and created a statewide program for funding construction of facilities necessary to meet state-determined adequacy standards. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-15-101 to 121 (LexisNexis 2002).

[¶ 6] Throughout all of these changes, the local school districts retained constitutional and statutory authority to fund school construction through the issuance of bonds. As part of the 2002 reformation of the state capital construction statutes, the legislature provided for specific new procedures for school districts to follow should they decide to issue bonds for facilities in “excess of the statewide standards for the adequacy of school buildings and facilities.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-701 (LexisNexis 2002). Those procedures included two public hearings at which the district was to explain the need to provide funding for facilities in excess of state standards. The legislature established March 11, 2002, as the effective date of that amended statute. 2002 Sp. Sess., Ch. 51 § 2.

[¶ 7] Throughout this constantly changing landscape of school finance law, individual districts in need of funding for deficient facilities faced the proverbial moving target in terms of the requirements and procedures. Those with pending applications for state funding became known as “pipeline” schools, meaning those in the pipeline for funding, but whose funding had not yet been approved. Johnson County School District No. 1 and Washakie County School District No. 1 (school districts) were such “pipeline” schools.

Johnson County School District No. 1

[¶ 8] The Buffalo high school and the Kayeee middle/high school were both identified in Campbell I and Campbell II as schools in immediate need of capital construction. In 1999, when the district began the process of planning and designing new facilities to replace them, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-15-111 was in effect, requiring the district to meet the ninety percent of bonded indebtedness limitation. The process for receiving a state grant for construction of the facilities required the district to certify that a bond issue, if needed to meet the ninety percent requirement, would be submitted to the voters within eighteen (18) months following submission of the application for the state grant. This Court issued its opinion in Campbell II on February 23, 2001, holding § 21-15-111 unconstitutional. On March 20, 2001, we granted a petition for rehearing on limited issues. In August 2001, the school district issued a call for an election pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-21-103 (Lexis 1998). Issuance of ballots and absentee voting began on September 5, 2001. On September 27, 2001, the school district issued its bond proclamation giving notice of an election on November 6, 2001, on the question of whether it would be allowed to issue general obligation bonds not to exceed $8,500,000 “for the purposes of erecting, equipping and furnishing a new high school in Buffalo and a new middle school/high school in Kaycee as well as enlarging, improving, remodeling, repairing, adding to, equipping and furnishing buildings ... within and for the district.” This Court issued its opinion on the rehearing on October 2, 2001, in which it affirmed its holding that § 21-15-111 was unconstitutional. The election on the bond issue was held on November 6, 2001, as planned and the parties have stipulated that it complied in all respects with the procedural requirements of § 21-13-701. The bond issue passed with an affirmative vote. No one filed a contest of the election within fourteen (14) days as allowed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-21-107 (Lex-isNexis 2003).

[¶ 9] On April 14, 2002, the state approved the school district’s application for funding under the new statutes governing capital construction of schools. However, the state denied the portion of the application which sought funding for an auditorium and other facilities. The same day, the school district approved the use of a portion of the bond issue authorized in the November 6, 2001, election for those facilities that the state had rejected, including the auditorium. C.A. “AT Snell, R.M. “Bob” Wagner, and John Trierweiler (challengers) immediately served their notice of governmental claim with the school district contesting the use of the bond funds for what they deemed were “local enhancements” without following the procedures required in the amended statutes. On April 18, 2003, the school district filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale of the bonds was proper and the funds could be expended for construction of the auditorium and the other facilities. The school district also filed an amended complaint seeking to enjoin the challengers from contesting the action claiming § 22-21-107 prevented them from doing so. The challengers answered and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the election was void ab initio. The school district filed a motion to dismiss, which was treated as a motion for summary judgment, and thereafter the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The challengers also filed a motion to certify the issue to this Court and the district court ultimately certified the two questions to this Court, which we agreed to answer. The bonds have not been sold due to the pending litigation.

Washakie County School District No. 1

[¶ 10] The state’s study of school construction needs, as noted in Campbell II, identified the Worland middle school, like the Johnson County schools, as being in immediate need of capital construction. The school district began discussing how to address that need in May 1998. On August 24, 2000, it applied for a state grant to fund construction of a middle school with an attached auditorium under the statute then in place, which required the school district to certify it had used ninety percent of its indebtedness capacity. Simultaneously, the school district called for an election on November 7, 2000, pursuant to § 22-21-103, requesting the voters’ authorization of general obligation bonds not to exceed $6,030,000 for the purpose of “construction of a new middle school and [a] new auditorium.” The election was held on November 7, 2000, and the proposal received an affirmative vote. On February 27, 2001, four days after this Court’s opinion in Campbell II was issued, the legislature passed an appropriation of $10.9 million for the new middle school project and required further plans and engineering to be submitted to the Joint Appropriation Committee by December 1, 2001. On February 28, 2002, the legislature passed an appropriation for $11.9 million for what the state considered an adequate middle school, but which did not include an auditorium. After consulting with counsel concerning the impact of Campbell II and III, the school district proceeded with selling bonds up to $3.5 million to fund construction of the auditorium. The bonds were sold on June 20, 2002, and were included in the 2002 Washakie County tax levies. All payments for 2002 property taxes included an amount for the bonds in question and on January 15, 2003, the Washakie County Treasurer paid $147,548.74 on the bonds. The school district signed a contract with its general contractor on January 27, 2003, and bids were opened for sub-contractors on March 12, 2003, with construction to commence May 12, 2003. Wayne T. Voss, Stan Wostenberg, Jane Wos-tenberg and David Hamilton (challengers) filed a notice of claim under the Governmental Claims Act on April 7, 2003, and a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on April 11, 2003, seeking a declaration that the bond proceeds could not be used to fund local enhancements and an injunction barring the expenditure or commitment of funds to the project until the declaratory judgment had been resolved. The school district filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming the challengers were barred from challenging the bond election by Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-21-107, 21-13-706(b)(vi) and (c), and the doctrines of laches, estoppel, waiver, and failure to join indispensable parties. The district court held a hearing on May 8, 2003, on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a temporary restraining order, and denied both. The challengers then sought certification of the matter to this Court, and the district court did so on July 29, 2003. We agreed to accept certification on August 12, 2003.

DISCUSSION

Are Challengers Barred from Objecting to the Use of the Bond Funds Bg Statute or Laches, Estoppel, Waiver, or Failure to Join Necessary and/or Proper Parties?

[¶ 11] The school districts contend the challengers are barred from making their claims by § 22-21-107, which allows electors to contest bond elections providing they do so within fourteen (14) days after the result of the election has been determined, and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-706(b)(vi) and (c), which provide bonds issued under the authority of the statute and with the proper recitals “shall be incontestable for any cause whatsoever after their delivery for value.” The challengers respond first by arguing the election contest statute does not apply to their claims because they do not complain about the election procedures. Instead, they contend their claims are focused upon the use of the proceeds from bonds, which were authorized and issued when the state’s unconstitutional ninety-percent bonded indebtedness requirement was in effect. With regard to the application of § 21-13-706(b)(vi) and (c), the challengers claim these types of self-executing bond validation statutes are aimed at barring contests between the parties to the bonds and not intended to prevent constitutional challenges to the use of funds derived from the sale of the bonds. We will first consider whether the fourteen-day statute of limitations for contesting bond elections applies to the challengers’ claims.

[¶ 12] Title 22 of the statutes addresses procedures for all elections; Chap-terl7 establishes the procedures for election contests generally; and Chapter 21 sets out the procedures for bond elections specifically. Relevant provisions of Title 22 provide:

22-17-105. Grounds for contesting ballot propositions.
A ballot proposition which may by law be submitted to a vote of the people of a county, city or town, district, or other political subdivision may be contested by a petition of five (5) registered electors of the county, city or town, district or other political subdivision filed in the district court of the county not later than fifteen (15) days after the results of the election have been certified by the canvassing board. A ballot proposition contest is a civil action.
22-17-106. Grounds for contesting ballot propositions
(a) A ballot proposition may be contested for any of the following reasons:
(i) Misconduct or material negligence of an election official which affected the result of the election;
(ii) The election result was influenced by a bribe;
(iii) Illegal votes were counted or legal votes were not counted.
§ 22-21-107. Contests; procedure
Any five (5) qualified electors of the political subdivision may contest an election on the question of the creation of an indebtedness upon filing in the district court of any county in which the political subdivision is wholly or partially located, within fourteen (14) days after the result of the election shall have been determined, a petition alleging an error that would change the result of the election, in like form as in other cases of contested elections in the district court. The political subdivision shall be made defendant, and process shall be served upon the clerk of the governing body or other chief clerical officer as in other civil actions. No civil action contesting the results of such an election or alleging election errors may be commenced after the expiration of such fourteen (14) day period.

[¶ 13] These provisions must be read in pari materia. Shumway v. Worthey, 2001 WY 130, 37 P.3d 361 (Wyo.2001). The general contest provision sets forth three grounds upon which a ballot proposition can be contested in court: allegations of misconduct which affected the result of the election, bribery, or improper counting of votes. While the bond election contest statute does not proscribe specific grounds, it does specify “no civil action contesting the results of such an election or alleging election errors may be commenced after” the fourteen day period. Section 22-21-107. We believe it reasonable to conclude the legislature intended both contest procedures to apply to challenges of election procedures.

[¶ 14] The challengers concede the procedural requirements of the election statutes were met. However, they imply the voters were misled because the elections were conducted at a time when the statutes required school districts to use ninety percent of their debt limit, and thus, the public must have understood the bond issue was required before state funds could be received. Because Campbell II and III held that requirement unconstitutional, the challengers argue the voters were misinformed of the need for the bond issue. To the extent the challengers’ claim in this regard challenges the election itself, it is barred as untimely because it was not filed within the fourteen day limit for election contests. Even if this claim was not time barred, we find no defect in the notice provided the public regarding the bond election. The bond questions clearly stated the purpose of the bonds as required by § 22-21-103. Johnson County’s ballot proposition’s stated purpose was “erecting, equipping, and furnishing a new high school.” The challengers made no allegation the proposed auditorium was not part of the new high school. Was-hakie County’s bond proclamation specifically identified a “new auditorium” in conjunction with the new school. The challengers do not contend that the use of the funds for construction of auditoriums exceeds the statutorily authorized purposes or the description of the facilities contained in the ballot propositions. Instead, they suggest, without any support in the record, that had the public known the statute which required the school districts to bond to 90% of their indebtedness limit was unconstitutional, the election result may have been different. Two flaws exist in that argument. First, the Campbell II and III opinions were issued prior to the Johnson County election, and therefore, these voters were aware funding of facilities necessary to meet state standards was the state’s responsibility. Second, we have held that an allegation that the ballot proposition misled the public, absent fraud, intent to mislead or a violation of statute, must be accompanied by evidence the election result would have been different. Anselmi v. City of Rock Springs, 53 Wyo. 223, 80 P.2d 419 (1938). See Johnson v. City of Cheyenne, 504 P.2d 1081 (Wyo.1973), appeal dismissed sub nom.; Johnson v. Laramie County School District No. 1, 414 U.S. 990, 94 S.Ct. 342, 38 L.Ed.2d 229 (1973). The record in these eases contains no such evidence.

[¶ 15] The essence of the challengers’ claim is that this Court’s opinions and statutes adopted after the elections call into question the propriety of using the bond proceeds for local enhancements without having complied with the new procedures. However, the challengers themselves raised the prospect that the fourteen-day statute of limitations applied when they sought a declaration that the election was void ab initio and “a legal nullity.” When their pleadings are read as a whole, it appears clear the focus of their ire is on the use of the funds without following the new statutory procedures, not the conduct of the elections that occurred.

[¶ 16] This distinction is important to our determination of whether the election contest statute applies to the challengers’ claims. To the extent the election itself is contested, the plain language of the statute commands all such contests be filed within fourteen days of the determination of the election results. The obvious purpose of the short timeframe within which election contests must be filed is to assure finality of the election process. We have enforced strict observance of the election contest statutes. Johnson, 504 P.2d at 1082. However, where allegations are made of both election procedural errors and constitutional infirmities in the manner in which bond funds are proposed to be used, we have entertained the latter complaints even though raised after the fourteen-day limit of the election contest statutes. Hyatt v. Big Horn District No. 4, 636 P.2d 525 (Wyo.1981). The petitioners in the Hyatt case complained that the proceeds of a bond election were being applied within the district in a discriminatory fashion. After dismissal of the claims related to the election irregularities, this Court considered the alleged inequitable use of the bond proceeds even though it appears clear the challenge was not filed within the fourteen-day limit. We find a similar approach appropriate in this case. Simply because the legislature sought election finality does not mean taxpayers were forever foreclosed from challenging the manner in which school districts use the proceeds from the bonds authorized by such an election.

[¶ 17] Courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar results. In Shadow v. Rapides Parish School Board, 220 La. 302, 56 So.2d 555 (1951), persons challenging the consolidation of two school districts, and the assumption by one district of the debt of the other, filed after the time required for election contests. However, they made multiple claims, some directed at the propriety of the election itself and others at constitutional issues involved in the assumption of the debt by the one district. The court held the challenges to the election were barred by the time limit in the election contest statute, but the claims regarding the sale of the bonds were not barred and, finding the claims meritorious, the sale was enjoined.

[¶ 18] The challengers argue the election contest statute does not apply to constitutional claims. We find that argument misses the mark. If a constitutional claim relates to the conduct of the election, we see nothing in the statute to suggest such a claim must not also be brought within the fourteen-day period. Faced with similar arguments, other jurisdictions have likewise found election contest statutes must be complied with even when the contest is based upon a constitutional claim. Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 700 S.W.2d 831 (Mo.1985); Taxpayers, for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.2002).

[¶ 19] With regard to Johnson County School District, the challengers claim the school district initiated the litigation by filing a declaratory judgment action and that prevents it from claiming the election contest applies. We fail to see how the school district’s action, which was in direct response to the challengers filing a notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, waived its right to argue the election contest statute barred their claim. The challengers filed a cross claim within the declaratory judgment action, which represented their contest of the election in the judicial forum. The statute required that filing to occur within fourteen days of the election to the extent it challenged the election process. The question is not who took the first swing in this fight, but whether the challenge was aimed at the use of the funds as well as the conduct of the election. The former survives, even though it was not filed within fourteen days, the latter does not.

[¶ 20] The certified questions in the Was-hakie County School District case also included whether § 21-13-706(b)(vi) and (c) apply to bar the challengers’ claims. Subsection (b)(vi) provides that school bonds issued by a district and delivered to a purchaser shall “be incontestable as hereafter provided.” Subsection (c) then provides “Any resolution of a school district board of trustees authorizing bonds may provide that each bond therein authorized shall recite that it is issued under the authority of this article. Such recital shall conclusively impart full compliance with all the provisions hereof, and all bonds issued containing such recital shall be incontestable for any cause whatsoever after their delivery.” The Johnson County bonds were not sold, pending the resolution of this litigation, but the Washakie County bonds were. While the record does not specifically indicate whether those bonds contained such a recital, we will presume they did. The question then becomes whether the fact that those bonds are by statute now uncontestable bars the challengers’ claim that the proceeds from the sale of those bonds cannot be used for the auditorium without compliance with the new statutory procedures.

[¶ 21] We fail to see how the statute which provides that the bonds “delivered to the purchaser,” or in other words sold, are uncontestable, prevented the challengers from claiming the proceeds from that sale cannot be used as proposed by the school district. A bond is simply evidence of a debt on which the governmental body promises to pay the bondholders a specified amount of interest for a specified length of time and to repay the loan on the expiration date. Black’s Law Dictionary, 169 (7th ed.1999). The only effect of the statute was to assure that no one could contest that Washakie County School District must repay the bondholders as provided by the terms of the bonds. Whether they had statutory authority to use the proceeds from the sale of the bonds as they did, and propose to continue to do, is an entirely unrelated question. Thus § 21-13-706(b)(vi) and (c) did not bar the challengers’ claims regarding the use of the bond proceeds.

[¶ 22] The Washakie County School District also claims the challengers were barred by the doctrines of laches and estop-pel because they were aware of the Campbell decisions and the amended statutes long before they filed their claims. The challengers respond by arguing they raised their objections in the political forum in the hope the school districts would decide not to use the funds without following the new statutory procedures. We see nothing in the challengers’ actions that would justify application of either laches or estoppel. As a further ground for its argument that challengers’ claims are barred, Washakie County School District claims the challengers failed to join the contractors and the purchasers of the bonds as indispensable parties under Rule 19, W.R.C.P. However, they cite no authority and make no cogent argument for that proposition and, therefore, we decline to address it. Burnham v. Coffinberry, 2003 WY 109, 76 P.3d 296 (Wyo.2003).

Use of Bond Proceeds for Local Enhancements

[¶ 23] Wyoming school districts are authorized by § 21-13-701 to incur indebtedness for construction of school buildings subject to the constitutional limitation that such debt shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the assessed value of the taxable property. Art. 16, § 5. At the time both the Johnson and Washakie County elections occurred, the statute authorized schools to seek voter approval of indebtedness for any facilities “which ... enables the district to provide facilities which are adequate to provide educational programs required” and provided, “the purposes for which an indebtedness may be created shall be broadly construed.” Section 21-13-701(b). Also at that time, school districts obtained most of the funding for school facilities through property taxes and the state only stepped in after school districts had reached 90% of their bonded indebtedness limit. Section 21-15-107. In 2002, as part of the changes in state financing of capital construction of school facilities made in response to Campbell II and III, the state assumed responsibility for funding all facilities which are necessary to meet state standards. In an effort to continue to authorize local districts to incur voter-approved debt to construct school facilities, however, the legislature amended § 21-13-701 to provide school districts could incur such debt for facilities “in excess of statewide standards for the adequacy of school buildings and facilities.” Section 21-13-701(b) (LexisNexis 2002). If a district chooses to do so, the statute now requires school districts to hold at least two (2) public hearings before submitting the issue to the voters at which time the school board “provides an explanation of the need to obtain district funding for building and facility features that are in excess of state standards for building and facilities.” Section 21-13-701(c) (LexisNexis 2002). The legislature established March 11, 2002 as the effective date of that amendment. 2002 Sp. Sess., Ch. 51 § 2.

[¶ 24] The challengers objection to the use of the funds as proposed by the districts rests on the premise that somehow this Court’s decisions in Campbell II and III, which spawned the new statutory requirement for two 'public hearings on bonds proposed for local enhancements, prohibited the use of bonds which had been approved by elections held when the ninety percent requirement, declared unconstitutional in those decisions, was in effect. They do not claim the amended statute applied retroactively which, of course, it could not and, by its own terms, did not. Instead, they are left with the contention that the effect of the Campbell II and III decisions, which were issued after the Washakie County election, but prior to the Johnson County election, must be read to have invalidated the statutes authorizing those elections. Leaving aside the question of whether a court’s decision can retroactively invalidate an election as is suggested in the Washakie County situation, we believe the fundamental flaw in the challengers’ premise is the suggestion that the Campbell II and III decisions had any effect upon the authority granted to the school districts by § 21-13-701. In Campbell II, this Court considered the constitutionality of § 21-15-107 which established the criteria for state funding of school construction and we held unconstitutional the requirement that local districts bond to ninety (90) percent of their capacity before they qualified for state funding. We held the constitution required equal funding for all schools and imposed on the state the responsibility for such funding for facilities necessary to provide an adequate education to Wyoming’s children. We did not hold § 21-13-701, which authorized districts to incur debt to fund construction of school facilities, unconstitutional. Nor did we in any way limit the ability of school districts to perform their responsibilities by using funds from any source authorized by statute. Instead, we held unconstitutional the statute which withheld state funding until the 90% limit was met by districts.

[¶ 25] In fact, we explicitly stated in the last sentence of Campbell II, “[r]ecognizing the time required to remedy the constitutional deficiencies in the statutes, we authorize school districts to continue to exercise their statutory authority to raise revenues to address capital construction needs in the interim.” We do not know how we could have been any clearer. Id. at 566. And yet, we went even further in Campbell III to clarify that our ruling had no impact upon school districts’, authority to fund school construction through authorized means and stated:

We agree with WEA that we must clarify that, from the date of our opinion, all bonds in place remain in effect. However, school districts are no longer required to have reached bonded indebtedness of ninety percent (90%) or more of their constitutional debt limitation imposed under Wyoming Constitution, art. 16, § 5 in order to receive state assistance for those capital construction projects identified in the MGT study. In Campbell II, we held that the legislature unconstitutionally relied upon local wealth by requiring local school districts to resort first to local resources for capital construction and to bond to ninety percent (90%) of their capacity before becoming eligible for state funding. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-15-lll(e) (Lexis 1999).
Our decisions have neither eliminated nor reduced “local control” as it exists today. On the contrary, we have recognized a school district’s right to rely upon some local funding to serve the purpose of improving the quality of education delivered to its students through innovation or modernization. The Wyoming Constitution permits school districts to impose bonded indebtedness up to a set limit. We have decided that the State cannot take this money from a local school district for any purpose.

Id. at 331.

[¶ 26] We will try here again to make it clear. Our constitution requires the state to provide funding to all school districts to provide the facilities which the state has deemed necessary to meet state standards. Local school districts may fund local en-haneements to those facilities from any source authorized by the legislature. At the time of the elections in Johnson and Washak-ie counties, the statute authorized districts to incur debt to fund facilities without the requirement of public hearings or specific explanation by the board of why the facilities were needed. Our decisions in Campbell II and III did nothing to change that. By its own terms, the amended statute governing the procedures school districts must now follow to issue bonds for school construction does not apply retroactively. 2002 Sp. Sess., Ch. 51 §§ 1, 2.

[¶ 27] In each of the Campbell cases, this Court has recognized that time is required by the legislature and the school districts to make the constitutionally mandated changes. We have made every effort to assure the least disruption possible to the functioning of our public education system while those changes are implemented by making our rulings prospective. In Campbell County School District v. Catchpole, 6 P.3d 1275 (Wyo.2000), we honored the prospective nature of Campbell I by rejecting the argument that the statutes declared unconstitutional by that decision were unenforceable while the legislature acted to replace them. We do the same here.

[¶28] We hold Washakie County School District No. 1 has authority to use the bond proceeds from the 2000 bond election to fund the auditorium and other local enhancements under construction in that school district. Likewise, Johnson County School District No. 1 is authorized to sell the bonds authorized by the 2001 election and proceed with its plans to construct the Buffalo high school with the auditorium and other proposed local enhancements.

      . This concept of allowing school districts to use otherwise available funding sources to fund facilities or programs in excess of those deemed by the state to be adequate was introduced in Campbell I and has become known as "local enhancements.”

      . "22-21-107. Contests; procedure. Any five (5) qualified electors of the political subdivision may contest an election on the question of the creation of an indebtedness upon filing in the district court of any county in which the political subdivision is wholly or partially located, within fourteen (14) days after the result of the election shall have been determined, a petition alleging an error that would change the result of the election, in like form as in other cases of contested elections in the district court. The political subdivision shall be made defendant, and process shall be served upon the clerk of the governing body or other chief clerical officer as in other civil actions. No civil action contesting the results of such an election or alleging election errors may be commenced after the expiration of such fourteen (14) day period."

      . " § 21-13-706. Execution, form and contents of bonds

      (b) A bond delivered to the purchaser thereof in the optional statutory form shall:

      (iv) If not paid upon presentation at maturity, continue to draw interest until the principal thereof is paid in full;
      (c) Any resolution of a school district board of trustees authorizing bonds may provide that each bond therein authorized shall recite that it is issued under the authority of this article. Such recital shall conclusively impart full compliance with all the provisions hereof, and all bonds issued containing such recital shall be incontestable for any cause whatsoever after their delivery for value.”

      . The opinion addresses the issue of laches and notes the district court found the petitioners withheld their objections and "allowed the Defendants to proceed with plans and the start of construction” which suggests the claims were not filed within the then applicable ten day period after the election.

      . As noted in both Campbell I and II, there may come a time when local enhancements become the standard. As we said in Campbell I, "local enhancement may also result in substantive innovations which should be available to all school districts as part of a proper education. The definition of a proper education is not static and necessarily will change. Should that change occur as a result of local innovation, all students are entitled to the benefit of that change as part of a cost-based, state-financed proper education.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LEHMAN, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    2004 WY 24
    Randy EKLUND, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellee (Defendant in Intervention). Farmers Insurance Exchange, Appellant (Defendant in Intervention), v. Randy Eklund, Appellee (Plaintiff).
    Nos. 02-278, 02-279.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    March 17, 2004.

      Representing Appellant Eklund: Les Bow-ron and Frank R. Chapman of Beech Street Law Office, Casper, WY. Argument by Mr. Bowron.
    Representing Appellee Farmers Ins. Exch.: James D. Bramer and Blair J. Traut-wein of Wick, Campbell, Bramer, Ukasick & Trautwein, LLC, Fort Collins, CO. Argument by Mr. Trautwein.
    Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
   LEHMAN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), which is potentially liable to Randy Eklund (Eklund) under an underinsured motorist insurance policy, appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for trial setting. The district court denied the motion finding that the issue of damages was res judicata due to a prior settlement between Eklund and the tortfeasor, Terry Tebben (Tebben), of which Farmers was aware. In the same order denying trial setting, the district court also determined that Gainsco Ins. Co. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 2002 WY 122, 53 P.3d 1051 (Wyo.2002) applied and ordered that Farmers could only be held liable for its policy limits based on its determination that the settlement between Eklund and Tebben was objectively unreasonable. Eklund challenges this determination. We reverse.

ISSUES

[¶2] Farmers advances the following issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err in denying defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange’s motion for a trial setting and in finding against Farmers on its underinsured motorist coverage for policy limits?

Eklund appeals the following issues:

1. The District Court erred as a matter of law by applying Gainsco Ins. Co. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 2002 WY 122, 53 P.3d 1051 (Wyo.2002) to the facts of this personal injury case.
2. The District Court committed clear error when it purported to make findings of fact concerning the settlement, “policy limits,” and the reasonableness of the settlement. This error may be reversed under the de novo standard of review.

FACTS

[¶ 3] This cases arises out of the same accident that was the subject of suit in Eklund v. PRI Envtl., Inc., 2001 WY 55, 25 P.3d 511 (Wyo.2001). That case thoroughly set forth the facts relating to the accident and the circumstances surrounding it, and we need not repeat those facts in their entirety. Instead, we will relate several of those foundational facts so as to put this case in context and disclose additional facts pertinent to the instant case. See PRI Environmental, ¶¶ 3-9.

[¶ 4] Tebben was employed by PRI Environmental, Inc (PRI). On several occasions he was required to purchase parts in Casper, Wyoming and deliver them to PRI’s work-site. At the close of the workday on Friday, October 21, 1994, Tebben picked up a list of parts needed the following Monday. Tebben was instructed to purchase the parts on Monday morning before reporting back to work. After picking up the list, Tebben left for his home in Casper. Traveling ahead of Tebben on a dirt road were fellow PRI employees, Eklund and Warren Ash (Ash) in Ash’s vehicle. At some point, Ash stopped on the road apparently to determine whether Tebben would take a shortcut or continue along the road. Tebben collided with the Ash vehicle causing physical injury to all three.

[¶ 5] Eklund filed an action against Teb-ben and PRI. Eklund claimed Tebben was negligent in driving his vehicle and that PRI was liable for his damages under the theory of respondeat superior. Farmers, which provided the underinsured motorist coverage on Ash’s automobile, intervened as a defendant in the action on June 30, 1999. Farmers claimed that if Eklund were unable to fully recover his damages from Tebben and PRI, Farmers was potentially responsible to pay damages. Farmers participated at the pretrial conference and filed a pretrial conference memorandum as an additional defendant. In a later filed stipulation, the parties agreed that Farmers would not be identified as a party defendant to the jury and not appear at trial in front of the jury, but would be allowed to interact with both attorneys and the court outside the presence of the jury-

[¶ 6] PRI filed a motion for summary judgment. PRI claimed that Tebben was on his way home at the time of the accident, so no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether Tebben was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. On November 23,1999, the district court granted PRI’s motion on the basis that, at the time of the accident, Tebben was simply leaving the jobsite after work and did not have to return with the parts until Monday morning. Therefore, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the facts was that Teb-ben was not acting in the scope of his employment when the accident happened. See PRI Environmental, ¶¶ 3-9.

[¶ 7] The remaining parties were set for trial on December 6, 1999; but, on the day that trial was to begin, Eklund and Tebben agreed to a settlement. This settlement included a stipulated judgment against Tebben for the sum of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars. In relevant part, the settlement was explained to the court as follows:

MR. BOWRON: ... The parties Ek-lund and Tebben have arrived at a settlement of this matter which involves the following terms and conditions:
Mr. Tebben will allow judgment to be taken against him in favor of Mr. Eklund for the sum of $750,000.
The judgment by this agreement — and we’ll have a stipulation prepared and entered into between the parties — will set forth that Mr. Eklund, in exchange for that judgment for the sum of $750,000, Mr. Eklund covenants not to execute against Mr. Tebben personally in terms of his personal assets, and that includes that Mr. Tebben will not provide Mr. Eklund with an assignment of any claim or claims that he may have against his own insurance company, Mountain West Farm Bureau.
Mr. Eklund preserves and reserves his right to appeal the Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of PRI on the issue of whether or not Mr, Tebben was within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that issue necessarily incorporates the concept that PRI, by virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior, is liable for Mr. Eklund’s injuries as the employer of Terry Tebben.
And if Mr. Bramer wants to make a record of it, he may. But I believe that although they are an observer to this case, this agreement does not do anything to inhibit Farmers Insurance Exchange from also appealing, as a party defendant, the Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of PRI Environmental, Inc., as Mr. Tebben’s employer.
If I have left anything out or if either of the attorneys wish to add anything, I should mention that Mr. Bramer, who represents Farmers Insurance Exchange, and I have discussed the underinsured motorist provisions to which Mr. Eklund is a party beneficiary, and that the rights under that policy of insurance remain.
The parties are free to agree or disagree as to the amount of damages, and they may or may not agree to arbitrate any claim Mr. Eklund may have or does have against Farmers Insurance Exchange. And I believe that’s all I have.
MR. BRAMER: This is James Bramer appearing on behalf of Farmers Insurance Exchange. As Mr. Bowron has stated, I would just restate that Farmers Insurance Exchange reserves all rights to appeals related to pre-jury issues, and also reserves all contract rights that may come from an insurance policy written to Mr. Warren Ash for which the plaintiff Randy Eklund has beneficiary rights as an additional insurer. That’s all I have.
MR. BRAMER: I should also add one more point on behalf of Farmers Insurance Exchange: It’s to be clear that this agreement did not have the participation of Farmers Insurance Exchange. It is an agreement between the plaintiff, Randy Eklund, and the defendant, Terry Tebben, only.
MR. BOWRON: And I have to make sure that I make it clear, however, that Mr. Bramer, on behalf of Farmers Insurance Exchange, was informed of and advised of the contents of this settlement at all times, well prior to this agreement being put on record.

[¶ 8] At that point, court adjourned and no trial took place. Thereafter, the various parties appealed the summary judgment granted to PRI, and this court affirmed that summary judgment. See PRI Environmental, ¶¶ 22-23. Having pi-eviously never done so, on June 6, 2002, Eklund filed a motion for entry of judgment against Tebben in accordance with the stipulated agreement. On June 28, 2002, Farmers filed a motion for trial setting. Following these motions, but before the court ruled on these motions, on October 7, 2002, Eklund filed a separate action against Farmers in the Eighth Judicial District of Wyoming. In this action Eklund sought a declaratory judgment that Farmers waived its right to a jury trial on the issue of Eklund’s damages and is estopped from seeking re-litigation of all issues related to those damages. Eklund additionally sought damages for alleged bad faith, policy benefits, and attorney fees pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 26-15-124.

[¶ 9] On November 5, 2002, the trial court denied Farmers’ motion for trial setting and entered an order against Farmers. The district court found that the doctrine of res judicata barred Farmers from disputing damages. In its order the district court found “Farmers had an opportunity to present their claim to a jury. Farmers chose to forgo its right to a jury determination of damages when it failed to prosecute its case in front of a jury when it had the opportunity to do so.” The order also stated that in light of Gainsco Ins. Co. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 2002 WY 122, 53 P.3d 1051 (Wyo.2002), the amount of the settlement between Eklund and Tebben was objectively unreasonable and therefore found that Farmers could only be held liable for its policy limits. Eklund then filed a motion to amend the order considering the district court’s reference to the Gainsco case. This motion was denied, and these appeals followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 10] The issues asserted by the parties present questions of law. We review questions of law de novo. We accord no deference to the district court concerning questions of law and are not bound by the district court’s determinations concerning legal issues. Aztec Gas & Oil Corp. v. Roemer Oil Co., 948 P.2d 902, 903 (Wyo.1997); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 882 P.2d 813, 820 (Wyo.1994).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 11] We begin with the issue of whether Farmers is precluded from litigating the issue of damages. Farmers asserts that the district court erred when it found the doctrine of res judicata applied to prevent Farmers from seeking a determination of its obligation to Eklund. Eklund claims that the district court did not err, but should this court find that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel by acquiescence also apply. Thus, Eklund argues that the district court’s denial of Farmers’ motion for trial setting should be upheld. We disagree that any of these doctrines apply to the ease at hand and reverse.

[¶ 12] Farmers intervened in this action as a defendant. As such, Farmers became a party to the litigation with the same rights and responsibilities of an original party to the litigation. In its answer to the underlying complaint, Farmers asserted several affirmative defenses including the operation of the insurance policy at issue, comparative fault on behalf of the plaintiff, preexisting injuries and/or conditions, assumption of risk, and the failure to mitigate damages. Farmers claims that while it clearly asserted these affirmative defenses, such issues were never litigated and resolved and that Farmer’s continues to have an interest in litigating the claim. We agree. Farmers was never dismissed as a defendant in intervention and did not participate in the settlement between Eklund and Tebben. Hence, Farmers has a right to have its obligation, if any, to Eklund determined.

[¶ 13] As we have stated numerous times “Mes judicata bars the relitigation of previously litigated claims or causes of action. Slavens v. Board of County Commissioners, 854 P.2d 683, 686 (Wyo.1993).” Polo Ranch Co. v. City of Cheyenne, 2003 WY 15, ¶ 12, 61 P.3d 1255, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2003) (quoting PRI Environmental, ¶ 15). The four factors used to determine whether res judicata applies are 1) identity in parties; 2) identity in subject matter; 3) the issues are the same and relate to the subject matter; and 4) the capacities of the persons are identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them. Id. Res judi-cata generally prevents parties from presenting the same claim in subsequent actions once that claim has been adjudicated. PRI Environmental, ¶ 18. “A policy reason for res judicata is that each litigant shall be limited to one opportunity to try his case on the merits.” Goglio v. Star Valley Ranch Ass’n, 2002 WY 94, ¶ 14, 48 P.3d 1072, ¶ 14 (Wyo.2002). Additionally, res judicata encourages resolution of the plaintiffs claims in a single action. PRI Environmental, at ¶ 19. It is worth noting that this case does not present a subsequent lawsuit; it is in fact the same lawsuit.

[¶ 14] Farmers claims that the issue of damages was never litigated and therefore there is not relitigation. Eklund counters that consent judgments are the equivalent of a litigated claim. We have said that we consider consent judgments and dismissals with prejudice to be the equivalent of a judgment on the merits for the purposes of res judicata. PRI Environmental, ¶ 17. One reason for doing so is to force parties to abide by their agreements. PRI Environmental, ¶ 19.

[¶ 15] Nevertheless, the settlement presented by this case is not an agreement between Eklund and Farmers. Instead, the settlement was between Eklund and Tebben. While Farmers had knowledge of the settlement, it was not a party to the settlement and did not consent to the settlement in that sense. Due to the nature of underinsured motorist coverage, Farmers’ liability does depend to some extent on Tebben’s liability. It therefore may appear that Farmers is bound by the amount of judgment against Tebben whether that amount is determined by settlement or jury trial. However, in this instance, Farmers intervened to protect its interests and prevent this very result. In doing so, Farmers became a party with its own interest in a jury determination of damages. Farmers’ intervention made it clear that Farmers had no intent to be bound by any settlement between Eklund and Tebben if it was not a party to such settlement.

[¶ 16] Eklund argues that Farmers allowed the settlement to take place, thus Farmers consented to it. Farmers was not in a position to prevent a settlement between Eklund and Tebben. Having no control over Eklund and Tebben, but having intervened as a party, Farmers’ course of action was to prevent being bound to that settlement by making it clear that Farmers was not a party to the settlement and did not consent to it. Looking to the recitation of the settlement agreement, we can see that this is precisely what Farmers did. For instance, we see:

If I have left anything out or if either of the attorneys wish to add anything, I should mention that Mr. Bramer, who represents Farmers Insurance Exchange, and I have discussed the underinsured motorist provisions to which Mr. Eklund is a party beneficiary, and that the rights under that policy of insurance remain.
The parties are free to agree or disagree as to the amount of damages, and they may or may not agree to arbitrate any claim Mr. Eklund may have or does have against Farmers Insurance Exchange. And I believe that’s all I have.
MR. BRAMER: This is James Bramer appearing on behalf of Farmers Insurance Exchange. As Mr. Bowron has stated, I would just restate that Farmers Insurance Exchange reserves all rights to appeals related to pre-jury issues, and also reserves all contract rights that may come from an insurance policy written to Mr. Warren Ash for which the plaintiff Randy Eklund has beneficiary rights as an additional insurer. That’s all I have.
MR. BRAMER: I should also add one more point on behalf of Farmers Insurance Exchange: It’s to be clear that this agreement did not have the participation of Farmers Insurance Exchange. It is an agreement between the plaintiff, Randy Eklund, and the defendant, Terry Tebben, only.

[¶ 17] These excerpts show that Farmers clearly had the impression that it was not bound by the settlement. They also show that the agreement did not dispose of all the claims. In fact, the passages show that some later contestation was specifically contemplated because “the parties [were] free to agree or disagree as to the amount of damages.” It would be patently unfair to bind a party to a settlement to which it did not participate and clearly thought it had reserved its right not to be bound to. If the recitation of the agreement shows anything besides the settlement terms between Ek-lund and Tebben, it is that at the time of settlement both Eklund and Farmers reserved all rights with respect to each other including the right to determine damages and Farmers’ liability under the underin-sured motorist policy.

[¶ 18] Furthermore, it is important to note that Farmers intervened and became a party. Generally, a determination of the liability of one party in multiparty litigation is not a determination of liability to all parties. See Local Number 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 3079, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986). See also W.R.C.P. 54(b) and Hoback Ranches, Inc. v. Urroz, 622 P.2d 948, 949 (Wyo.1981). In multiparty litigation, parties who choose to resolve the matter by settling cannot affect the rights of those who were dissenting parties. The settling parties may not dispose of the third party’s claim without that party’s agreement. See Firefighters, 478 U.S. at 529, 106 S.Ct. at 3079. Farmers intervened early to protect its rights stating that under American Family Ins. Co. v. Bowen, 959 P.2d 1199 (Wyo.1998), it was required to do so or risk having its motion declared untimely. Looking to Farmers’ answer, we can surmise that it was Farmers’ intent to have its obligations under the underinsured motorist policy determined through litigation and to prevent itself from being bound to a settlement to which it was not a party. It would be somewhat contradictory to now say that even though Farmers intervened, a settlement among the other parties, in which Farmers did not participate, will still bind Farmers.

[¶ 19] The district court seemed to recognize the problem that damages between Ek-lund and Farmers were not actually litigated and, citing Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Wyo.1997), stated: “The doctrine of res judicata is not limited to only those issues which were actually decided in an earlier proceeding. Issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding may also be foreclosed from subsequent consideration.” The district court then stated: “Farmers had an opportunity to present their [sic] claim to a jury. Farmers chose to forgo its’right to a jury determination of damages when it failed to prosecute its case in front of a jury when it had the opportunity to do so.”

[¶ 20] The district court is correct that this is a recognized principle of the doctrine of res judicata. However, the party being barred by res judicata must have truly been given an opportunity to raise that issue in an earlier proceeding. We must, therefore, consider the context of Farmers’ participation in this litigation. Farmers did not carry the burden of establishing damages. Farmers intervened as a defendant and asserted affirmative defenses to some of the damages claimed by Eklund. The burden of proving the amount of damages was Ek-lund’s. He was the plaintiff in the action and was the party claiming damages. In fact, Eklund technically had no claim against Farmers until we upheld the summary judgment granted to PRI because PRI had a $1,000,000 liability policy that would have covered Eklund’s claimed injuries. Had PRI’s summary judgment been overturned, a trial between Eklund and Farmers would have been unnecessary.

[¶ 21] In addition, adding a twist to these particular circumstances is the fact that the parties made an agreement concerning Farmers’ participation in the trial. This agreement included that Farmers would

cease all further trial preparation efforts, including preparation of witnesses, exhibits and substantive strategy communication with Tebben and/or Tebben’s counsel, and will not appear at trial in the capacity of a party at trial in exchange for Plaintiffs agreement not to identify Farmers Insurance Exchange [as a] party defendant to the jury, Plaintiffs agreement not to divulge the existence of any insurance fund available to indemnify Defendant Tebben’s actions at trial, and to curtail any insurance reference before the jury as generally proscribed by Rule 411, Wyoming Rules of Evidence.

Consequently, Farmers attended to proceedings on December 6 with the expectation that, for the most part, it would be an observer and that Tebben and his attorney would be presenting the defense. Under these circumstances expecting Farmers to demand a trial at that date would be somewhat unrealistic.

[¶ 22] Furthermore, the principle cited by the district court from Hamill is followed by, “Thus, unless Hamill can show good cause why the issue was not raised at an earlier opportunity, or that the interests of justice require consideration of his claim, the court may refuse to consider the issue in a later proceeding.” Hamill, at 1359. We have therefore recognized that some circumstances may be argued to prevent the application of this rule. In fact we have noted such exceptions to the doctrine of res judica-ta because one of the goals of res judicata is to give, rather than deny, justice. Cermak v. Great West Cas. Co. 2 P.3d 1047, 1054 (Wyo.2000). Here, even if Farmers could be considered to have had the opportunity to present its claim, Farmers has a good cause reason for why it did not present its claim earlier. We therefore hold that res judicata does not apply to bar the litigation of the issues between Eklund and Farmers.

[¶ 23] Eklund argues that if res judicata does not apply, then waiver or estop-pel by acquiescence applies. We have previously found that if parties acquiesce in the decree of a district court, the decree is res judicata as to them. In Re Estate of Kokesh, 360 P.2d 368, 371 (Wyo.1961). When Eklund moved the district court to reduce the settlement to judgment, Farmers responded and asserted that it had reserved all rights and was of the position that it was not bound by that settlement. Prior to that time no judgment on the settlement had been entered. Hence, Farmers did not acquiesce in the judgment. Additionally, waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and must be manifest in some unequivocal manner. State ex rel. Workers’ Safety & Compensation Div. v. Wright, 983 P.2d 1227, 1231 (Wyo.1999). It is clear from the recitation of the settlement that Farmers clearly believed it had the right to a later determination of damages and tried to preserve that right. Farmers thus did not intentionally relinquish its right to a determination of damages.

[¶ 24] Farmers similarly had no prior opportunity to appeal this issue. A final adjudication of this issue did not occur until November 5, 2002, when the trial court denied Farmers’ motion for trial setting and found Farmers liable to Eklund for its policy limits. The only party with a judgment prior to that point was PRI, and at the time of the first appeal the summary judgment granted to PRI was the only appealable issue. We therefore hold that these other preclusion doctrines do not apply to bar Farmers from litigating the issue of damages. It is clear that Farmers was not a party to the settlement and reserved its right to contest damages at a later date. Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in denying Farmers’ motion for trial setting.

[¶ 25] Given that we reverse on the first issue, we need not address Eklund’s arguments with respect to whether or not the district court erred in applying Gainsco to this case. The parties are entitled to a determination of the issue of damages between them and are not bound by the settlement between Eklund and Tebben. As a result, we need not determine at this time whether or not Gainsco applies to this situation or situations similar to this. Whether or not the settlement between Eklund and Tebben was reasonable is not relevant to the issues remaining between Eklund and Farmers.

CONCLUSION

[¶ 26] We reverse the order of the district court denying Farmers’ motion for trial setting and remand the matter to the district court for a trial on the issue of damages.


author: HILL, Chief Justice.

text:
    2004 WY 25
    LARIAT DIESEL CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation, d/b/a Lariat International Trucks, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; and Jack’s Heavy Equipment, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, Appellees (Defendants).
    No. 02-272.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    March 17, 2004.
    Representing Appellant: Thomas M. Hogan and Donald L. Painter, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Hogan.
    Representing Appellees: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; and Mary Loos, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Loos for Wyoming Department of Transportation. James L. Edwards of Stevens, Edwards & Hallock, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming, for Jack’s Heavy Equipment, Inc.
    Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
   HILL, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant, Lariat Diesel Corporation (Lariat), disputes the authority of the Appellee, Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), to purchase motor vehicles from Appellee, Jack’s Heavy Equipment, Inc, (Jack’s). Lariat contends that the district court erred in failing to enjoin the award of the bid to Jack’s, and in denying Lariat’s demand that the vehicles be purchased from it. Lariat asserts that Jack’s was not a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Wyoming nor did Jack’s have a dealer franchise which authorized it to sell the vehicles that were the subject of WYDOT’s bid solicitation. Because of these circumstances, it is Lariat’s further contention that Jack’s did not qualify to compete in the bidding process and that WYDOT could not accept Jack’s bid, even though Jack’s eventually did become a licensed dealer in Wyoming, before the bid was awarded to it. In addition, Lariat contends that the district court erred in setting aside the default entered in favor of Lariat and against the State. Lariat also seeks to recover the costs it incurred in seeking to bid in these circumstances, lost profits associated with the bid, and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this matter as a “private attorney general.”

[¶ 2] We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Lariat raises these issues:

A. Did the district court err in denying Lariat’s request to enjoin the State from executing and/or performing the contract with Jack’s and in denying Lariat’s request to award the contract to Lariat in its October 11, 2001 “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Summary Judgment”?
B. Did the district court err in granting Summary Judgment against Lariat on its claims for declaratory relief and for intentional interference with business expectancy in the court’s February 25, 2002 “Second Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Summary Judgment”?
C. Did the district court err in granting Summary Judgment against Lariat on its claims for damages under the theories of promissory estoppel and breach of a duty to treat Lariat’s bid honestly and fairly in the court’s November 13, 2002 “Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant”?
D.Did the district court err in setting aside the clerk of court’s Entry of Default against the State of Wyoming in its February 6, 2001 “Order Setting Aside Entry of Default”?

WYDOT reorders and restates the issues proposed by Lariat:

1. Whether the District Court erred when it set aside the Clerk’s Entry of Default against [WYDOT].
2. Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lariat’s prayer to enjoin [WYDOT] from performing the contract with Jack’s and when it denied Lariat’s prayer to award the contract to Lariat.
3. Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lariat’s claims for declaratory relief and intentional interference with business expectancy.
4. Whether the District Court erred when it denied Lariat’s claims for damages under the theories of promissory estoppel and breach of a duty to treat Lariat’s bid honestly and fairly.

In addition, on August 19, 2003, two days before oral argument, the State submitted a letter to the Court (with copies to other counsel) giving notice of additional authority supporting its arguments. During oral argument, it was made clear by WYDOT’s attorney that the additional authority did not support an argument already put forward by WYDOT, but rather, it supported an argument that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and, hence, the appeal should be dismissed. This theory was premised on the failure of Lariat to exhaust the remedy available to it under W.R.A.P. 12 (i.e., Lariat had failed to timely file a petition for review of WYDOT’s administrative action). The issue raised by WYDOT during oral argument was not addressed to the district court. WYDOT did not file a motion to dismiss the appeal nor was this issue supported by a brief or other written argument addressed to this Court.

Jack’s statement of the issues is more limited:

I. Did the District Court properly grant summary judgment in favor of [WYDOT and Jack’s]?
II. Should Jack’s Heavy Equipment, Inc. be awarded its attorney fees and costs as a result of the violation of Rule 11 [W.R.C.P.] by [Lariat] in pursuing this frivolous litigation?

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

[¶4] The essential facts are not disputed. WYDOT solicited bids to supply dump truck chassis and a tractor. Lariat and Jack’s submitted bids. The bids were due on January 6, 2000. Jack’s was the lowest bid, and Lariat’s was the second lowest bid. Lariat contends that Jack’s was not a qualified or responsive bidder because Jack’s was not licensed to sell vehicles in Wyoming, as well as because it was not yet a franchised dealer for the products it proposed to sell. WY-DOT knew of these factors at the time the bids were opened. Jack’s got its dealer’s license on January 10, 2000. The issuance of that license is at the heart of this dispute. The State concedes that Jack’s did not submit its application for a license until January 12, 2000. Nonetheless, the license in question was issued with an effective date of January 10, 2000. At oral argument, counsel for WYDOT explained that the license is issued as effective on the date WYDOT receives the dealer’s bond, rather than the date of the application itself. Lariat indicated at oral argument that it had not heard such an explanation before. The record does show that Jack’s franchise agreement was effective on January 1, 2000. Jack’s bid was accepted by WYDOT on January 20, 2000. Jack’s completed delivery on the contract on July 28, 2000.

[¶ 5] Immediately following the award of the bid to Jack’s, Lariat sent several letters to WYDOT protesting the award. By letter dated February 3, 2000, WYDOT informed Lariat that WYDOT’s decision to award the contract to Jack’s was final. By letter dated March 15, 2000, Lariat submitted a claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101 through 1-39-121 (LexisNexis 2003). Lariat demanded the sum of $64,318.81 as lost profits and the expense of preparing its bid. The claim was denied by letter dated April 21, 2000.

[¶ 6] After Jack’s had already completed delivery on the contract, Lariat filed its complaint in the district court on August 11, 2000, alleging that WYDOT could not accept the “nonresponsive” bid made by Jack’s. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-16-102 and 31-16-103 (LexisNexis 2003) provide that no person may solicit sales of vehicles without a vehicle dealer’s license, and that if such sales are to be solicited, then the license must be obtained before soliciting sales. An attorney representing WYDOT entered an appearance on August 25, 2000, and also filed a motion to dismiss on that same date. Jack’s filed a similar motion to dismiss on August 28, 2000. By order entered on January 4, 2001, both motions were denied.

[¶ 7] On January 17, 2001, Jack’s answered Lariat’s complaint. WYDOT’s answer was filed on January 26, 2001. On January 26, 2001, Lariat filed a motion for entry of default, asserting that WYDOT’s time to answer had expired. See W.R.C.P. 12(a)(1). The clerk’s entry of default occurred on January 26, 2001. On January 31, 2001, WYDOT filed a motion to set aside entry of default. The district court set aside the entry of default by order entered on February 6, 2001.

[¶ 8] Lariat, Jack’s, and WYDOT filed motions for summary judgment in early July of 2001. By order entered on October 11, 2001, the district court determined that neither an order enjoining WYDOT from awarding the bid to Jack’s, nor an order directing WYDOT to award the bid to Lariat, were feasible remedies because the contract had already been awarded to Jack’s, and Jack’s had made delivery of the vehicles. Thus, two of the remedies sought by Lariat were moot. However, the district court also held that Lariat would be permitted to file an amended complaint to assert a claim for damages.

[¶ 9] Such a complaint was filed on October 2, 2001. Lariat filed a second motion for summary judgment, which WYDOT opposed, as did Jack’s. The district court’s order on these motions for summary judgment was entered on February 25, 2002. In that order, the district court granted WY-DOT’s motion for summary judgment with respect to declaratory relief, largely because such relief would have been moot in these circumstances. Concerning Lariat’s claim called “breach of a duty to treat Lariat’s bid honestly and fairly,” the district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. With respect to Lariat’s claim of promissory estoppel, the district court allowed Lariat additional time to file another amended complaint. The district court granted Jack’s motion for summary judgment on Lariat’s claim of intentional interference with a business expectancy and awarded Jack’s its costs. The district court denied Jack’s motion for sanctions pursuant to W.R.C.P. 11.

[¶ 10] On March 7, 2002, Lariat filed its second amended complaint iterating its claim that WYDOT breached a duty to treat its bid honestly and fairly, and fleshing out its promissory estoppel claim. Lariat asserted damages of $64,300.00 for loss of profit and the cost of submitting its bid. Summary judgment motions were again filed by Lariat and WYDOT. By order entered on November 13, 2002, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of WYDOT, bringing this litigation to a conclusion. The district court determined that Lariat’s claim was a tort action and was precluded by the Governmental Claims Act. It further recognized that WYDOT was not governed by Wyoming’s general competitive bidding statute. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 9 — 2—1016(b) (LexisNexis 2003) (excepting entirely the University of Wyoming, community college districts, and school districts; and the department of transportation except as to paragraphs (xi), (xii) and (xiii) of that subsection). The district court also relied upon our decision in State v. Weisz & Sons, Inc., 713 P.2d 176 (Wyo.1986), wherein we concluded that where the bidding procedures followed by an executive branch agency are not “other than lawful, reasonable, and in the exercise of honest judgment, good faith, and accepted competitive bid practices, ... the judiciary of this state cannot interfere and substitute its judgment for that of the responsible agency[.]” Id. at 185. Furthermore, the district court concluded that promissory estoppel did not apply in the circumstances of this case because WYDOT made no promise by soliciting bids and because WYDOT reserved the right to reject any and all bids.

DISCUSSION

[¶ 11] We can find no basis on which to disagree with the district court’s orders in this matter. We will enlarge only briefly on the district court’s conclusions. The competitive bidding process is designed primarily to protect the public’s interest in ensuring that the government will not pay too high a price for goods and services, and irregularities in that process will seldom provide a basis for a claim for damages. See generally, James L. Isham, Annotation, Public Contracts: Low Bidder’s Monetary Relief Against State or Local Agency for Nonaward of Contract, 65 A.L.R.4th 93, esp. § 2 at 99-102 (1988 and Supp.2002); Noralyn O. Harlow, Annotation, Public Contracts: Authority of State or Its Subdivision to Reject All Bids, 52 A.L.R.4th 186, esp. § 2 at 192-95 (1987 and Supp.2002); and Robert M. Ey, Annotation, Authority of State, Municipality, or Other Governmental Entity to Accept Late Bids for Public Works Contracts, 49 A.L.R.5th 747, esp. § 2 at 754-55 (1997 and Supp.2002). Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-16-102, 31-16-103, and 31-16-112 address an entirely separate and distinct interest, and a violation of those statutes is punishable as a misdemeanor.

[¶ 12] With respect to the district court’s decision to grant WYDOT relief from the entry of default, we note that decisions resolving motions for setting aside the entry of default or a default judgment are made in the sound discretion of the trial court. Fluor Daniel (NPOSR), Inc. v. Seward, 956 P.2d 1131, 1134 (Wyo.1998). We perceive no abuse of discretion here.

[¶ 13] WYDOT contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal and that it must be dismissed. WYDOT is correct that a question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on the Court’s own motion. See Exotex Corporation v. Rinehart, 3 P.3d 826, 828 n. 2 (Wyo.2000); and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company v. Blury-Losolla, 952 P.2d 1117, 1119-20 (Wyo.1998). Under the peculiar circumstance of this case, we decline to address WYDOT’s jurisdictional issue as that matter is not entirely clear from the record, and the briefing and argument on this question are inadequate.

[¶ 14] We have carefully considered Jack’s demand that fees and costs be awarded to it, and we decline to do so.

CONCLUSION

[¶ 15] The orders of the district court are affirmed. Each party is to bear its own costs in this appeal.

      . The record also reflects that WYDOT changed its policy after this occurrence to require a vehicle dealer to have a license when a bid is submitted.

      . The district court issued a decision letter on September 6, 2001, permitting the filing of an amended complaint, hut counsel for WYDOT neglected to submit an order memorializing that decision letter, as directed in the decision letter, until after the amended complaint was filed.

      . At this point, there were no remaining issues pertaining to Jack's.