## Facts

- Johnson County’s Board of County Commissioners created the Scenic Preserve Trust of Johnson County to hold “Trust Property Rights” for scenic preservation.
- Lowham Limited Partnership granted a conservation easement on Meadowood Ranch to preserve the ranch “in perpetuity,” restricting development and prohibiting mineral removal.
- The easement was transferred to and held by the Scenic Preserve Trust rather than the county directly.
- Lowham sold Meadowood Ranch to Fred and Linda Dowd in 1999, subject to the conservation easement.
- In 2001, a mineral-interest owner sought to develop coal bed methane, and the easement’s mineral-extraction prohibition impeded development.
- In 2002, the Dowds requested that the Board, acting as trustees, convey the easement to them; the Board approved the conveyance and executed a deed stating the easement was extinguished and terminated.
- In 2003, Robert Hicks (a county resident) and Pronghorn Publishing, Inc. (a local corporation) sued for declaratory, mandamus, fiduciary-duty, and constructive-trust relief, alleging lack of authority and inadequate consideration, among other claims.
- The Wyoming Attorney General was notified but chose not to intervene.

## Issues

1. Whether private plaintiffs who are county residents, taxpayers, or local corporations have standing to enforce a charitable trust holding a conservation easement, absent a special interest distinct from the general public.
2. Whether the case should be dismissed on standing grounds, regardless of other procedural or merits-based arguments.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, but on different grounds than the district court.
- The Court held that the Scenic Preserve Trust functioned as a charitable trust benefiting the public at large.
- The Court concluded Hicks and Pronghorn lacked standing because they did not show a special interest separate and distinct from that of the general public.
- Because standing was lacking, the Court did not reach the merits of the asserted open-meetings, fiduciary-duty, constitutional, or trust-law claims, nor did it rely on the district court’s timeliness rationale.

## Legal Principles

- A charitable trust that benefits an indefinite public is ordinarily enforced by the Attorney General (or comparable public officer), not by private individuals.
- Private-party standing to enforce a charitable trust requires a “special interest” that is distinct from the general public’s interest in the trust’s purposes.
- Generalized interests such as residency, taxpayer status, or concern for public compliance and preservation goals do not constitute the required special interest.
- The Attorney General’s decision whether to intervene or sue to protect a charitable trust is a matter committed to that office; private parties generally cannot substitute themselves as enforcers when they lack a distinct beneficiary status.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs, as members of the public without a distinct special interest, lacked standing to challenge the trustees’ extinguishment and conveyance of a conservation easement held in a charitable trust; enforcement authority generally rests with the Attorney General.


Hicks v. Dowd, 157 P.3d 914 (Wyo. 2007)