Utah Court of Appeals
Can you adversely possess abandoned public property in Utah? Fries v. Martin Explained
Summary
Martin fenced and exclusively possessed a portion of a county alley for over forty years but could not acquire it through adverse possession because the alley remained dedicated for public use until formally vacated in 2000. When the county vacated the alley, it reverted to Fries as successor to the original dedicators rather than being split between the adjoining landowners.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Linda Martin had fenced and exclusively possessed a twelve-foot portion of a county alley for over forty years, paying property taxes during her seventeen years of ownership. The alley was originally dedicated to the public in 1916 when the Highland Subdivision was created, but had been out of public use since at least the 1950s. In 2000, Salt Lake County formally vacated the alley through an ordinance, and the county tax assessor added the disputed tract to the adjoining Fries property. When Martin refused to vacate, Fries brought a quiet title action.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: first, whether Martin could acquire title to the disputed tract through adverse possession despite the property’s public dedication; and second, if not through adverse possession, whether the vacated alley should be split equally between the adjoining landowners under Utah Code section 72-5-105(2)(a) or awarded entirely to one party.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Fries. While Martin satisfied the typical adverse possession requirements of open, notorious, and hostile possession with tax payments, she could not adversely possess property designated for public use under Utah Code section 78-12-13. Crucially, the court held that property dedicated for public use remains subject to this restriction until formal vacation occurs, regardless of actual public usage. Mere abandonment or nonuse cannot terminate the public dedication – only formal vacation by the proper authority suffices. Additionally, because Fries was the successor in title to the original dedicators of the alley, the entire tract reverted to Fries rather than being split between adjoining owners.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the bright-line rule that formal vacation procedures are mandatory for terminating public dedications. Practitioners should carefully research the dedication history of any property before pursuing adverse possession claims, as public dedication creates an absolute bar until proper vacation occurs. The case also demonstrates the importance of tracing chain of title in vacation proceedings, as successors to original dedicators may have superior rights over adjacent landowners.
Case Details
Case Name
Fries v. Martin
Citation
2006 UT App 514
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050026-CA
Date Decided
December 29, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Property dedicated for public use cannot be acquired by adverse possession until it is formally vacated by the governing authority, regardless of whether the public actually uses the property.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions in summary judgment proceedings
Practice Tip
When advising clients on adverse possession claims, always verify whether the property was ever dedicated for public use, as such dedication prevents adverse possession until formal vacation occurs.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.