What constitutes an interruption in continuous public use under Utah's highway dedication statute? Wasatch County v. Okelberry Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Wasatch County v. Okelberry addressed a fundamental question about when private roads become public highways through continuous use. The case arose when Wasatch County sought to have four mountain roads declared dedicated and abandoned to public use under Utah Code section 72-5-104(1), which requires “continuous use as a public thoroughfare for a period of ten years.”

Background and Facts

The Okelberry family owned property crossed by four unimproved mountain roads. Wasatch County presented witnesses who testified they used the roads for recreation from the 1960s through 1980s without permission. The Okelberrys countered with evidence that they had posted “No Trespassing” signs, locked gates periodically, asked trespassers to leave, and sold hunting permits. The trial court found the roads had been dedicated but that the county was equitably estopped from opening them due to the Okelberrys’ assertion of private control since 1989.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was determining what constitutes “continuously used” under the Dedication Statute. The court of appeals had applied a balancing test, weighing the duration and frequency of gate locking against the frequency and volume of public use. This approach troubled the Supreme Court.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court rejected the balancing approach, finding it inconsistent with the notion of continuous use because “any sufficient interruption in use necessarily makes use noncontinuous.” Instead, the Court established a bright-line rule: “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, constitutes an interruption sufficient to restart the running of the required ten-year period.”

The Court distinguished between interruptions and intermissions, explaining that roads may be used continuously even if not constantly, provided use occurs as often as the public finds convenient or necessary and the landowner takes no action intended to interrupt use.

Practice Implications

This decision provides much-needed clarity for property owners and municipalities. Property owners must take overt acts with clear intent to interrupt public use to prevent dedication. The effectiveness of such acts doesn’t depend on the level of public use—measures sufficient for heavily-used roads also suffice for lightly-used ones. The Court remanded for specific factual findings about when signs were posted and gates locked, emphasizing the importance of detailed fact development in dedication cases.