Utah Court of Appeals
When can property owners interrupt public dedication of roads? Wasatch County v. Okelberry Explained
Summary
The Okelberrys owned property crossed by unimproved roads that Wasatch County sought to have declared as dedicated to public use under the Dedication Statute. After the Utah Supreme Court established a new interruption standard focusing on intent rather than actual restriction, the case was remanded for factual findings on whether the Okelberrys intended to interrupt public use by locking gates.
Analysis
Background and Facts
The Okelberrys owned property in Wasatch County crossed by several unimproved roads. Wasatch County filed suit seeking to have these roads declared dedicated to public use under Utah Code section 72-5-104, the Dedication Statute. The County presented witnesses who testified they used the roads for recreation during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s without permission. The Okelberrys countered with evidence that they had locked gates and posted “No Trespassing” signs as early as the late 1950s to restrict public access.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Okelberrys had sufficiently interrupted continuous public use to prevent dedication under the statute. After the Utah Supreme Court established a new interruption standard in the companion case, the trial court had to determine whether the Okelberrys’ actions—locking gates and posting signs—constituted valid interruptions based on intent to interrupt public use rather than actual restriction of access.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court misapplied the Supreme Court’s newly articulated interruption standard. Under the correct standard, “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 trial court erred by focusing on whether gates actually restricted public access rather than whether the Okelberrys intended to interrupt public use. The court also failed to make specific factual findings about when gates were locked.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights the importance of seeking supplemental proceedings when appellate courts establish new legal standards. Because the relevance of intent evidence was unclear at the original trial, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the Okelberrys’ motion for additional evidence presentation. Practitioners should monitor developing case law and move for supplemental proceedings when new standards make previously irrelevant evidence determinative of case outcomes.
Case Details
Case Name
Wasatch County v. Okelberry
Citation
2010 UT App 13
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080988-CA
Date Decided
January 28, 2010
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court misapplies the interruption standard under Utah Code section 72-5-104 when it focuses on actual restriction of public use rather than the property owner’s intent to interrupt use of a road as a public thoroughfare.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether a public highway has been established under the Dedication Statute, with significant discretion granted to the trial court in its application of the facts to the statute; abuse of discretion for denial of motion for new trial
Practice Tip
When appellate courts establish new legal standards that make previously irrelevant evidence determinative, move for supplemental proceedings to present additional evidence on the newly relevant issue.
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.