Can trespassers establish a public road under Utah's dedication statute? Utah County v. Butler Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Utah County v. Butler provides crucial guidance on when roads become public highways through continuous use and clarifies who constitutes the “public” for purposes of Utah’s road dedication statute.

Background and Facts

Bennie Creek Road begins in Birdseye, Utah, and provides access to the Uinta National Forest. After crossing private property owned by the Butlers, the road continues into the forest for recreational access. In 1996, Mr. Butler erected a locked gate across the road. Utah County responded by seeking a judicial declaration that the road had been dedicated and abandoned to public use under Utah Code section 72-5-104(1), which provides that a highway is dedicated to public use when continuously used as a public thoroughfare for ten years.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three critical issues regarding Utah’s Dedication Statute: (1) whether the road was continuously used as required by the statute, (2) whether trespassers may constitute “public” users, and (3) whether the trial court properly identified a ten-year period of continuous use. Additionally, the court examined whether trial courts must award statutory damages under Utah Code section 72-7-104(4) for unauthorized road obstructions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that trespassers are members of the public for dedication purposes, rejecting the Butlers’ argument that only “good faith” trespassers should count. The plain language of the statute includes “the people as a whole” without excluding trespassers. However, property owners can interrupt continuous use through overt acts intended and reasonably calculated to stop public use. The court found that natural conditions like snow and flooding, livestock gates, and “No Trespassing” signs positioned to prohibit travel off the road did not constitute such interruptions.

Regarding damages, the court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the word “may” in section 72-7-104(4) grants trial courts discretion in awarding statutory damages rather than mandating their award.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts both property owners and government entities. Property owners must take deliberate, overt action to interrupt public use if they wish to prevent road dedication. Installing gates for livestock control or posting signs against off-road travel will not suffice. For practitioners challenging factual findings on appeal, the court emphasized the importance of properly marshaling evidence, warning that failure to do so may result in refusal to review trial court findings.