When does continuous public use establish a dedicated road? State v. Six Mile Ranch Explained

In State v. Six Mile Ranch, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when public use of a private road can establish a public dedication under Utah Code section 72-5-104(1). The case involved a dispute over roads on Stansbury Island that had been used by the public for recreational activities for decades.

Background and Facts

The Bleazards owned property on Stansbury Island crossed by the West Stansbury Road and several side roads. From 1949 to 1993, the public used these roads for recreational activities including camping, hunting, and sightseeing without seeking permission. In 1993, the Bleazards petitioned Tooele County to abandon its interest in the West Stansbury Road. However, the county failed to provide required notice to the State, whose land abutted the road at the Great Salt Lake meander line.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the roads became public highways by dedication under the three-part test requiring continuous use as a public thoroughfare for ten years, and (2) whether the county ordinance abandoning the road was invalid due to inadequate notice under section 27-12-102.4.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the correctness standard while granting trial courts significant discretion in applying facts to the dedication statute. For the West Stansbury Road, the court found continuous use existed because the public used the road “as often as they found it convenient or necessary,” and use was not permissive because users neither sought nor received permission. Importantly, the court distinguished between the public’s legitimate use of the road and property owners’ efforts to prevent trespassing on adjacent private property.

However, the court affirmed that the Pass and Cable Roads were not dedicated because property owners “routinely asked the public to leave” those roads, preventing the continuous use required for dedication. The court also declared the county ordinance invalid because proper notice was not provided to all abutting landowners, including the State.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that clear and convincing evidence of dedication requires examining the specific circumstances of each road. Property owners’ actions to control trespassing on adjacent private property do not necessarily interrupt continuous public use of a roadway itself. The case also demonstrates the importance of strict compliance with statutory notice requirements in road abandonment proceedings, as courts will not read an actual notice exception into explicit legislative requirements.