Utah Supreme Court
Can periodic roadblocks prevent highway dedication in Utah? Leeds v. Prisbrey Explained
Summary
Terry Prisbrey purchased property through which West Center Street ran and erected barriers to restrict travel. The Town of Leeds sought a declaratory judgment that the street was dedicated to public use under Utah’s highway dedication statute. The trial court found continuous public use from 1966 to 1996, but the property owner’s predecessor had established periodic twenty-four-hour roadblocks during that period.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Leeds v. Prisbrey, the Town of Leeds sought to establish that West Center Street was dedicated to public use under Utah Code section 72-5-104(1), which provides that a highway is dedicated when continuously used as a public thoroughfare for ten years. Terry Prisbrey had purchased property through which the street ran and erected barriers to restrict travel. The previous property owner, Joanne George, had established twenty-four-hour roadblocks across the street in 1964, 1971, 1978, 1985, 1992, and 1999, using physical presence, sawhorses, and “No Trespassing” signs to demonstrate her intent to retain private ownership.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether George’s periodic roadblocks constituted an interruption in continuous use sufficient to restart the running of the Dedication Statute’s ten-year period. The case required the court to define what constitutes an adequate interruption of public use for purposes of highway dedication.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court established a bright-line rule for determining interruptions: “an overt act that is intended by a property owner to interrupt the use of a road as a public thoroughfare, and is reasonably calculated to do so.” The Court found George’s roadblocks constituted such overt acts, despite the fact that she never actually encountered anyone attempting to use the road during the blockades. The intent and conduct were sufficient to interrupt continuous use, even though the roadblocks occurred during intermissions when no one was using the road.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that property owners can effectively prevent highway dedication through periodic, well-documented efforts to assert private ownership. The ruling emphasizes intent and conduct over actual prevention of public access, making it easier for property owners to protect their interests through strategic interruptions of claimed public use.
Case Details
Case Name
Leeds v. Prisbrey
Citation
2008 UT 11
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20061085
Date Decided
February 12, 2008
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Continuously manned twenty-four-hour roadblocks constitute overt acts intended to interrupt public use of a road and are sufficient to restart the ten-year dedication period under Utah Code section 72-5-104(1).
Standard of Review
The trial court’s legal interpretation of the Dedication Statute is reviewed for correctness, factual findings for clear error, and the decision regarding whether a public highway has been established is reviewed for correctness with significant discretion granted to the court’s application of facts to the statute
Practice Tip
When challenging highway dedication claims, document any overt acts by property owners intended to interrupt public use, including temporary roadblocks or barriers, as these can restart the ten-year dedication period regardless of whether they actually prevented public access.
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.