Title: Koenig v. Gaines

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

440 P.2d 155 (1968) Alfred E. KOENIG, Plaintiff In Error, v. J. Leonard GAINES and George W. Crawford, Defendants in Error. No. 22058. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. April 8, 1968. Rehearing Denied May 6, 1968. Inman, Flynn & Coffee, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Hutchinson, Black & Hill, Boulder, for defendants in error. HODGES, Justice. The plaintiff in error filed an action in the trial court seeking an order enjoining the defendants in error from obstructing an alleged public road. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court or by name. The defendants aver that the purported public road, which ran through their land, had been abandoned and that there was another road available to the plaintiff for access to his mining claims. After trial to the court during which the trial judge visually examined the roads in question, judgment was entered for the defendants. *156 From this judgment, the plaintiff brings this writ of error and urges reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred as a matter of law in its findings of fact and conclusions of law which premised the court's judgment. Ownership of the Alaska and Blue Ribbon mining claim properties was conveyed to plaintiff in December 1963. Shortly thereafter, this action was commenced to enjoin the defendants from obstructing the so-called Sunbeam Gulch Road, which traverses Lots 69 and 70 owned by the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the Sunbeam Gulch Road is a public highway through the land of the defendants and that it has been used generally by the public since prior to 1902 for access to the properties now owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore claims that defendants had no right to obstruct this road by a fence and "no trespassing" sign. In addition to a general denial, the defendants aver that the plaintiff at all times since acquiring his mining claims has had other reasonable and suitable access to the claims and that the so-called Sunbeam Gulch Road through the defendants' land has been abandoned for a period of over forty years. The pre-trial order delineated the following determinative issues to be resolved by the trial court: * * * * * * * * * * * * In its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree", the trial court found as follows: Plaintiff maintains that if the evidence did establish non-use by the public of the Sunbeam Gulch Road, this alone is not sufficient to establish abandonment. In support of this proposition, the plaintiff cites Uhl v. McEndaffer, 123 Colo. 69, 225 P.2d 839, which involves an issue of abandonment of a public highway. On this issue, we therein held: The foregoing holding, however, does not encompass the full import of the trial court's findings in the case at bar. In addition to a finding of nonuser for the "past 30 years," the trial court also found that some time prior to 1935, another road was constructed leading to the plaintiff's mining properties, and that such other route was the only one in existence when plaintiff first became interested in Alaska and Blue Ribbon mining claims in 1955 or 1956 and when he purchased these claims in 1963. This finding therefore when superimposed on the finding of nonuser for over 30 years is sufficient to effectuate abandonment. Nonuser and evidence of an intent or determination to abandon amply support a finding of abandonment. In our view, the construction of another route plus nonuse of the Sunbeam Gulch Road reflects an intention or determination to abandon on the part of the public and those who in the past required access to the mining properties now owned by plaintiff. In Nicolas v. Grassle, 83 Colo. 536, 267 P. 196, it was recognized that casual roads across public land for which new roads have been substituted by the public or by common consent, was an element to consider in a dispute as to the public usage of a so-called casual road. This issue however did not require a determination in that case, and it therefore was not decided. However, in Sterlane v. Fleming, 236 Iowa 480, 18 N.W.2d 159, on the question of abandonment of a roadway, the following statement was made as a rule of law on this issue: The foregoing quotation in our view sets forth an acceptable rule of law applicable to the facts as found by the trial court. The non-use of the Sunbeam Gulch Road for over 30 years and the intent to abandon which is implicit from the construction and *158 use of another road, supports, as a matter of law, the trial court's finding that the Sunbeam Gulch Road through the defendants' property had been abandoned. The plaintiff's second assignment of error has no merit in view of our holding herein on the question of abandonment. Also, plaintiff's contention that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings is without merit. We have reviewed the testimony and exhibits and find that this record amply supports the trial court's findings of fact. Judgment affirmed. MOORE, C. J., and DAY, J., concur.