Utah Court of Appeals
Can seasonal public use create a dedicated public road in Utah? Campbell v. Box Elder County Explained
Summary
Box Elder County claimed Ridge Road became a public thoroughfare under Utah Code section 27-12-89 through continuous public use for over ten years. The trial court found the road was blocked by a locked gate except during deer hunting season when the Campbells permitted hunters to cross their property to access Forest Service land.
Analysis
In Campbell v. Box Elder County, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether seasonal public access to a private road could establish a public thoroughfare under Utah’s dedication statute. The case demonstrates the strict requirements for proving public dedication of private property.
Background and Facts
Ridge Road began on the Campbells’ property and extended for miles across private and Forest Service lands in a checkerboard pattern. A locked gate at the Campbell property blocked public access from the main county road. The Campbells customarily unlocked this gate only during October deer hunting season to allow hunters to cross their property to reach Forest Service land. Several witnesses testified they had been prevented from accessing the road due to the locked gate.
Key Legal Issues
Box Elder County argued the trial court erred in concluding Ridge Road had not been dedicated as a public thoroughfare under Utah Code section 27-12-89. The statute requires three elements: (1) continuous use, (2) as a public thoroughfare, (3) for ten years. The county bore the burden of proving dedication by clear and convincing evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied a correctness standard to the mixed question of law and fact but granted trial courts significant discretion given the fact-dependent nature of section 27-12-89. The court found two fatal defects in the county’s case. First, the road lacked continuous use because the public could not access it “as often as they found it convenient or necessary” due to the locked gate. Second, the seasonal hunting access constituted permissive use, which cannot establish public dedication under Utah law.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts strictly construe public dedication statutes, as “the law does not lightly allow the transfer of property from private to public use.” Practitioners should note that permissive use and physical barriers preventing continuous access will defeat dedication claims. The case also demonstrates the importance of proper appellate briefing—the county’s failure to marshal the evidence supporting challenged findings resulted in their automatic acceptance on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Campbell v. Box Elder County
Citation
1998 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 970587-CA
Date Decided
June 25, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A road is not dedicated to public use under Utah Code section 27-12-89 where public access is blocked by a locked gate except during deer hunting season and such seasonal use occurs by permission of the landowner.
Standard of Review
Correctness for mixed questions of fact and law applying Utah Code section 27-12-89, though trial courts have significant discretion in applying facts to statutory requirements; clearly erroneous for findings of fact
Practice Tip
When challenging fact findings on appeal, appellants must marshal all evidence supporting the trial court’s findings and demonstrate they are clearly erroneous, or the challenge will be rejected as mere reargument.
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.