Utah Court of Appeals

Can private users establish public road dedication through controlled access? S&W v. Fautin Explained

2024 UT App 60
No. 20220432-CA
April 25, 2024
Affirmed

Summary

S&W Hunting Ranch purchased property in 2016 and blocked access to a road crossing it. The Fautins, who had used the road for decades, claimed it was either a public road under the dedication statute or they held a prescriptive easement. The district court rejected both claims and quieted title in S&W’s favor.

Analysis

In S&W v. Fautin, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether private users who control access to a road can establish public dedication under Utah’s dedication statute or obtain prescriptive easements for their own use.

Background and Facts

S&W Hunting Ranch purchased property in Fish Lake National Forest in 2016, then blocked access to a dirt road crossing the property. The Fautins—a father and two sons who had used the road for decades—claimed the road was either dedicated to public use under Utah Code § 72-5-104 or they held a prescriptive easement in gross. The district court found that while the Fautins and select invitees used the road continuously, they maintained locked gates and required permission for access, actively preventing general public use.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether continuous use by a small group constitutes public thoroughfare use under the dedication statute when that group prevents broader public access, and (2) whether users who seek permission from property owners can establish the adverse mental state required for prescriptive easements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, distinguishing between “members of the public” and “the public” under the dedication statute. While some individuals used the road, they prevented “the public” from accessing it as frequently as convenient or necessary through locked gates and permission requirements. For the prescriptive easement claim, the court found the Fautins lacked an adverse mental state because they consistently sought and accepted permission from property owners or their agents, demonstrating submission rather than adversity.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that controlled access defeats both dedication and prescriptive easement claims. Property owners can prevent dedication by maintaining barriers that require permission for access. Conversely, those claiming prescriptive easements must maintain truly adverse use without seeking permission. The court’s emphasis on unchallenged factual findings also reinforces the importance of thorough trial preparation and preservation of error for appeal.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

S&W v. Fautin

Citation

2024 UT App 60

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20220432-CA

Date Decided

April 25, 2024

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A small group of private users who actively prevent public access through locked gates and permission requirements cannot establish public dedication under Utah Code § 72-5-104, and users who seek permission from property owners cannot establish the adverse mental state required for prescriptive easements.

Standard of Review

Questions of law are reviewed for correctness; factual findings are reviewed for clear error; whether facts satisfy Dedication Statute requirements is a mixed question reviewed for correctness with significant discretion in application of facts to statute; prescriptive easement factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion

Practice Tip

When challenging property rights, ensure factual findings are preserved for appeal—unchallenged findings will be binding even if they could support contrary conclusions.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Cox v. Armstrong Constr.

    June 12, 2025

    Redemption rights are assignable under Utah law, and the right to redeem arises from, rather than being extinguished by, an execution sale.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Property Rights
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Arguelles

    August 6, 2020

    The Shondel doctrine does not apply when duplicative criminal statutes have different effective dates, as the later-enacted provision impliedly repeals the earlier one.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
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.