Can courts exempt roads from public highway dedication requirements based on fairness? Heber City Corp. v. Simpson Explained

In Heber City Corp. v. Simpson, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether courts can create exceptions to the statutory requirements for establishing public highways by dedication under Utah Code section 27-12-89 based on fairness considerations.

Background and Facts: Heber City closed the Airport Road in 1989 to expand its municipal airport’s protection zone at the Federal Aeronautics Administration’s request. During subsequent condemnation proceedings against the Simpsons’ property, the city argued the Airport Road was private rather than public to avoid compensating for lost highway access. The Simpsons presented evidence that the public had continuously used the road from 1947 to 1989 for various purposes including accessing businesses, attending gun club events, recreational activities, and as a “lover’s lane.”

Key Legal Issues: The case centered on whether the Airport Road qualified as a public highway under Utah Code section 27-12-89, which requires three elements: (1) continuous use, (2) as a public thoroughfare, and (3) for a period of ten years. The trial court acknowledged evidence of public use over an extended period but concluded the road should be “exempted from the technical provisions” of the statute “in the interest of fairness and justice.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Utah Supreme Court applied correctness review while granting significant discretion to trial courts in applying facts to the statute. The court systematically analyzed each element and found all three satisfied: the public used the road continuously from 1947 to 1989 (over forty years), the use was by the general public rather than just adjoining property owners, and the use constituted thoroughfare access for various legitimate purposes. Critically, the court rejected the trial court’s “fairness and justice” exception, holding that once the technical provisions of section 27-12-89 are satisfied, “the road is a ‘public highway'” and “the court has no discretion to ignore that fact.”

Practice Implications: This decision establishes that courts cannot create equitable exceptions to statutory dedication requirements. When challenging or defending public highway status under section 27-12-89, practitioners must focus exclusively on the three statutory elements. The court’s emphasis on the “technical provisions” reinforces that dedication by use is a matter of strict statutory compliance, not judicial discretion based on perceived fairness.