When Kilts purchased his property, conflicts soon arose over the use of an access easement held by Osborn. See Osborn v. Manning, 685 P.2d 1121 (Wyo. 1984); Osborn v. Warner, 694 P.2d 730 (Wyo. 1985); Osborn v. Pine Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165 (Wyo. 1989); Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208 (Wyo. 1990); Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 549 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 817 P.2d 889 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960 (Wyo. 1996); and Osborn v. Estate of Manning, 968 P.2d 932 (Wyo. 1998). Osborn was also the appellant in Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 848 P.2d 237 (Wyo. 1993) and Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 870 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1994).
In the county court case, Manning filed a complaint against Osborn in 1988 for damages flowing from a ditch Osborn had dug across a road. The history of the road and the easement for the road is outlined in Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991). Manning's complaint sought damages for trespass, malicious trespass, and destruction of her property rights.
Osborn and the Manning family have a long history of litigating various disputes. See, e.g., Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960 (Wyo. 1996); Osborn v. Manning, 817 P.2d 889 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208 (Wyo. 1990); Osborn v. Manning, 685 P.2d 1121 (Wyo. 1984). Osborn was also the infamous plaintiff in Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 870 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1994), and Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 848 P.2d 237 (Wyo. 1993).
We are satisfied that an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge pursuant to WYO.R.CIV.P. 40.1(b)(3) is not an appealable order. Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991). While error in the ruling on the motion may be asserted in an appeal, any error with respect to that ruling is subsumed by our affirmance of the order of dismissal.
Osborn's penchant to seek legal redress to enforce his perception of his rights has been demonstrated to the district court and before this court. See Osborn v. Manning, 817 P.2d 889 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991); Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208 (Wyo. 1990); Osborn v. Pine Mountain Ranch, 766 P.2d 1165 (Wyo. 1989); Osborn v. Warner, 694 P.2d 730 (Wyo. 1985).
In Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208 (Wyo. 1990), we reversed dismissal of Osborn's claim for fence maintenance, but ratified our holding res judicata barred the claim for original fence costs. See, Osborn v. Manning, 812 P.2d 545, 547 (Wyo. 1991). Osborn differentiates his new claim, avowing he rebuilt, or modified, much of the fence to ensure compliance with statutory criteria.