Your source for news in Hot Springs County
Your source for news in Hot Springs County
In the continuing case of the Tipi Retreat matter, Hot Springs County has filed a request to set aside a Satisfaction of Judgment, which had been submitted to the Hot Springs County District Court in February of 2025.
The Satisfaction of Judgment was filed in the court case which had been commenced against Hot Springs County by Michael Stevens, Michele Stevens, and the Tipi Retreat. A Satisfaction of Judgment is a court pleading, which has the effect of advising the court that a judgment, which the court has entered against a party, has been fully satisfied by that party.
The filing of the pleading in this case, on its face, absolves the Stevens’ and the Tipi Retreat from having to pay fines which were imposed upon them by the district court in the amount of $40,250. Inasmuch as the district court ruled in a subsequent case that the fines remain imposed upon those parties and remain due and owing by those parties, Hot Springs County is now taking steps to collect the unpaid fines.
The long road here
On December 21, 2021, the commissioners of Hot Springs County denied a zoning change request, which had been filed by Michael and Michele Stevens and the Tipi Retreat. On January 19, 2022, the Stevens’ sought a review of the county’s action in the District Court of Hot Springs County.
In a May 24, 2024, ruling, Judge Simpson of the District Court, determined that the county commissioners had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in some respects, however, the Court ultimately upheld the Commissioner’s action.
By order of the court on November 27, 2024, the Stevens’ were fined the sum of $40,250, and were enjoined from any further non-compliance with the county’s land use regulations. Both the county, and the Stevens’, filed appeals with the Wyoming Supreme Court, seeking a review of the District Court’s order.
Along the process, the makeup of the board of county commissioners changed with Paul Galovich replacing Phillip Scheel and Bob Aguiar replacing Jack Baird. The two new Commissioners had each campaigned upon the land use issues between the county and the Stevens’, and were supported in their election efforts by the Stevens’, and by supporters of the Tipi Retreat.
On January 7, 2025, over the objection of then board chairman Tom Ryan, and despite the District Court’s Final Judgment on the issue, Aguiar and Galovich voted to set a hearing before the commissioners in February to allow the Stevens’ to pursue a “remedy” for their land use change denial. That hearing took place on February 4, 2025.
At the February hearing, after chairman Ryan had declined to participate in the process, commissioners Aguiar and Galovich voted to approve the land use application for the Stevens’; to extend the number of acres, which were to be reclassified, from 10 to 60 acres; to nullify the requirement that the Stevens’ pay the fines, which had been ordered by the District Court; and to mutually dismiss the appeals that were pending before the Supreme Court.
Due to the conflicting actions taken by board of county commissioners, the attorneys who had been representing the county in the dispute with the Stevens’, withdrew from further representation of the county. Moreover, Hot Springs County Attorney Jill Logan declined to represent the board with regard to the issue, due to the conflict of interest in her having represented the prior board against the Stevens’.
On July 30, 2025, Judge William Simpson ruled that the county commissioners had no legal jurisdiction to grant a “rehearing” to the Stevens’ on the issue of their previously denied land use change. Therefore, the actions taken by the board in February of 2025 to approve the zoning change and to remove the fines imposed upon the Stevens’ by the court, were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”
The court found that the proper avenue of appeal from the denial of their requested land use change, was in fact, the avenue the Stevens’ had pursued, by seeking a review of the District Court’s ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court. Once the Stevens’ had voluntarily dismissed their appeal in the Supreme Court, the denial of the land use change became final and not subject to further review – neither by the courts nor by the board of county commissioners.
Further the court found that nothing in the County’s Land Use Plan and Development Regulations (LUPDR) allowed the county commissioners to consider other evidence in support of the land use change, once the request had been denied, and that denial had become final. When their appeal to the Supreme Court was voluntarily dismissed by the Stevens’, the denial of the land use change became a “final agency action”, which is not subject to being reopened for further hearing.
The Court then ruled that the previously issued injunction, preventing the Stevens’ from renting tipis on the subject property on a commercial basis for the public, as well as the previously imposed fine of $40,250, remain in full force and effect.
The actions of the two county Commissioners, Aguiar and Galovich, are currently the subject of an investigation by the office of Governor Mark Gordon.
The board of county commissioners did not seek a review of Judge Simpson’s ruling in the Wyoming Supreme Court. However, inasmuch as the Stevens’ were not a party to the most recent court case, the previously filed Satisfaction of Judgment (which, on its face, absolves them from having to pay the imposed fine) remains filed with the District Court.
At a meeting on October 7, 2025, by a 2 to 1 vote (with commissioner Galovich dissenting), the commissioners directed county attorney, Jill Logan, to take appropriate steps to seek to collect the fines imposed by the District Court.
Stevens’ submit new complaint
In a letter dated December 24, 2025, the Stevens’ submitted a complaint with the county regarding Hot Springs County Planner Les Culliton and a request for immediate action on their new land use change application. The Stevens’ believe that Culliton is failing or refusing to process their new request, and have sent a written request to the board of county commissioners seeking Culliton’s removal from the process. This is a personnel matter, between Culliton and the county, so limited information is available.
Going forward
With the first step towards collection of the fines being taken by the county, the Stevens’ will have an opportunity to respond to the county’s request. Thereafter, another ruling will be forthcoming from Judge Simpson.
Reader Comments(0)