Case 2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145

Ent 1P34O4 Et 645 Pt 613

Date: 17-llAY-e007 11:3041'l

Fee; $50.00 Check

Filed Byz V B

VILKI BRRHETT. Recorder

CARBON COUNTY CORPORRTION

For: U$ DEPT 0F THE INTERI0R

tl.g7 5 0 ?G:t,

u.s. o,srFrcrcoum pAUL M. wARNER, united states Attorney (# y3ssey$lfrEP'0"'

JOHN K. MANGUM, Assistant United States A65n5p{t$? g U,Ll I 85 South State Steet #400

BISIRiCT O' UTA}I

8Y'murrmSah Lake City, Utah &4111

Telephone: (E0l) 524-5682

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States

IN T}IE LNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH . CENTRAL DWISION

I.,rNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BRUCE LEE DLINN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case no.2:99CV 0145 TS

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S ...: \,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY _' .'3

JUDGMENT " 7;': ;

l:'d

-- :

Judge Ted Stewart C*-t:.::. l.J

-;: Ltf

-i,'3(.'

:i - iG

The Motion for Sumrnary Judgment of Plaintiff, the United States of America, cameionQ

for hearing at 3:t0 p.m. on Thursday, Ju1y28,2005, before the Honorable Ted Stewart. Plaintiff

was represented by John K. Mangum of the United States Attorney's Office. The Dunn group of

Defendants were represented by E. Jay Sheen. The Jacobsen group of Defendants were

represented by Steven R. Paul. other Deferdants did not oppose the motion, either themselves or

through counsel. Defendant Oakland Homes was represented by Kristine M. l,arsen who

attended the hearing but made no argurnent at the hearing. Pro Se Defendants John and Lillie

Woolsey and Timothy A. Hurst made no appearanae at the hearing.

Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, and heard the arguments of counsel, the

Cout now finds and concludes as follows:
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 2 of 13

Findings of Fcct

The following facts are established to exist without material dispute:

l. This is an action to quiet title to approximately 205 acres of land in various

adjoining parcels of property located in Carbon County, Utah (the'subject Propert/'). The

Subject Property lies partly under and adjoiru the south side of the €ast arrn of Scofield

Resenroir. See Plaintiffs Exhibits l-4. This Subjeot Prope(y also includes the land urder the

south portion of the dam whioh impounds the reservoir water, and some land immediately

downstream from the pres€nt dam. The Subject Property is all contiguously-located within the

South %of Section l0andwithintheWest %of thesouthwestquarteroftheSouthwestqrlarter

of Section I l, T. 12 S., R. 7 E., Salt Lake Basc & Meridian" More particularly, the Subject

Property consists of the following lands in Carbon County, Utatu located in Township 12 South,

Range 7 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian: In Section 10, all of the followingr SW l/4; S % of

SE l/4; and S l/: of NE l/4 of SE 1/4. In Section ll:W % of SW l/4 of SW l/4. Excluding from

both sections, ribbons of land oonveyed to 1) the State of Utalr for State Highway 96, and 2)

tlenver and Rio Grand Westem Railroad for the railroad track.

2. Some of the Subject Property was the subject of rwo of three deeds to adjoining

property all executed by the same grantors in a thrce-day period in September of 1927. Those

cornmon grantors were E.B. Jorgensen and his wife Gertrude S. Jorgensen, of Salt Lake City.

a. The first deed (the "Railroad De€d'), is a warranty deed dated September 20,1927,lo

the Denver and Rio Grande Western Raiboad Company, as grantee. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 5. It

conveyed a 200 foot wide ribbon of land, 100 feet on either side of the centerline of the track of

the route of the then-existing relocated Pleasant Valley line of the railroad, ln relevant part, it
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 0110512006 Page 3 of 13

haversed soction l0 in first a nor0rerly route from the south end of that section near the

southwest comer and then an easterly route through sections 10 and I I of the affected township

and range, a linle south of an earlier version of Scofield Reservoir then known as the Pleasant

Valley Reservoir, as the railroad headed from coal mines souttr of the town of Scofield past that

earlier rcservoir and dam and then eastwad into and down Price Canyon toward Helper. The

Railroad Deed was recorded last of th€ ttrree deeds on November 30,1927.

b. The second deed (the "1927 Mal*n Deed"), is a quitclaim de€d dated September 2l,

1921 ,to two brothers, Neil M. Madsen of Price, Carbon County, and Andrew C. Madsen, of Mt.

Pleasant, Sanpete County. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 6, graphically illustrated by Plaintiffs Exhibit

7. This deed quitclaimed, among other parcels, a fee simple interest in the property east and south

of the Railroad Deed, to which it refened, That land so quitclaimed by the 1927 Madsen Deed

was generally higher in etevation than the land to the west and north of it. The 1927 Madsen

Deed was the fint recorded of the three deeds, being recorded onNov. 2,192?.

c. The third deed (the*1927 PRWCD Deed"), is a wananty deed to Price River Water

Conservarrcy Distict ("PRWCD'), a public corporation, dated September 22,1927. See

Plaintiffs Exhibit 8, graphically illustrated by Plaintiff s Exhibit 9. This deed conveyed, among

other lands, the land west and north of the Railroad Deed, to which it also referred. That land so

conveyed by &e 1927 PRWCD Deed was generally below or lower in elevation than the land to

the east and south ofit. This deed was the second recorded ofthe tltee deeds, being recorded on

November 2, 1927, minutes after the 1927 Madsen Deed was recorded. PRWCD was then the

owner and operator of a smaller predecessor reservoir to what is now known as Scofield
Case 2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Fited 01105/2006 Page 4 of 13

Reservoir, which was then sometimes re&ned to as ttre Pleasant Valley Reservoir, See

Plaintiffs Exhibits 8, I I & 13. 

,

3. The 1927 Madsen Deed, at least in the only recorded and presently known abstraot

form, contained thr€e separate paragnphs describing the various lands quitclaimed thereby. The

language describing the property at issue in sectioru l0 and I I is all contained in the first

paragraph. In later paragraphs, after describing other lands, tlrere is language in the 1927 Madsen

Deed giving rights to the *gmntees, their heirs, administrators and assigns to us€ any part or

portion of said subdivisions of land below and between the said 7630 contour line [first

mentioned and described at the baginning of the second paragraphl and the water line of said

reseivoir, when the sam€ are not actually covered by the water therein, for any and oll purpos€s

not incoruistent with the flowage and storage of water thereon." Plaintiffs Exhibit 6.

4. The 1927 PRWCD Deed, at least in the only recorded and p,resently known abstract

form, also contained several separate paragraphs describing the various lands conveyed and

warranted thereby. The lang"age describing the Subject Property is contained in the first

panagraph. Howevero in a new paragraph after all parcels to which the 1927 PRWCD Deed

peilains are described, additional language of resenntion is included which states; "and subject

to right to graze or otherwise us€ any portion of said lands where not actually covered by water of

grantee's resei'.oir, hcretofore granted to Neil M, Madsen and Andrew C. Madsen." PlaintifPs

Exhibit 8.

5. The rest of the properfy at issue in this action (the North %of the SW l/4 of section

l0) was acquired by PRWCD in 1928 from Sarah Reese Jones, as Administratrix of the estate of

4

gnt 1e34O4 Bk 0645 P9 o616
Case 2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/0512A06 Page 5 of 13

Martha Re€se, who had won a quiet title judgment in the seventh judicial district court of the

State of Utah to that land in 1927. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 10.

6. By quitclaim deed dated February 5,'1945, and reconded Augrr,st 9,1945, PRWCD

conveyed the lands it owred relating to the Scofield Reservoir to the United States. That deed

included all ofthe land in l) the 1927 PRWCD De€d,2) the 1928 administatrix deed from Sarah

Reese Jones described above, and, 3) other adjoining or nearby lands acquircd by PRWCD. See

Plaintiffs Exhibit 13, illustated in Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.

7. Construction work on the new Scofield Dam was commenced bv the United States in

1943 and completed in 1946. PlaintifPs Exhibit I I at p. 1 141.

8. In connection with the constnrction of the new Scofield dam, a land purchase conFact

dated October2,1943 (signed in following weeks), to purchase &om Anna Wilcox Madsen (the

widow and successor of Neil M. Madsen), and louise lr,Iadsen Watts (the daughter and successor

of Andrew C. Madsen) and her husband, Joseph L. Watts, 137.4 acres of land in the southern

parts of section 10 and the southwestern corner of section 1 1 of T. 12 S., Range 7 E. This

prope{y had been a part of the 1927 Madsen Deed property described above. This land purchase

contract was recorded on December 1, 1943, shortly after it was signed by Parley R. Neeley, the

construction engineer for the Bureau of Reclamation, acting for tlre United States. See Plaintiffs

Exhibit 15. Paragraphs 3 and particularly 5 ofthat contract obligated the vendors to provide the

nec€ssary documentation to show they had fee simple unencumbered title to the contract property

which they could convey to'the United States by general warranty deed. This clearing of any

potential title defects was a prercquisite to payment to vendors.

1a3'ifO4 Ek 0645 F!-II6-17
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 6 of 13

9. The United Stdes conpsponded with Anna Madsen, her co-vendors, and various of

their representatives, over a period of more than four years, from late 1943 to rnid 1948,

concerning avariety of efforts to clear up potential title defects disclosed by the title work the

United States had done in early 1944 concerning the lands that were the subject of the 1943 land

pwchase contact describod above. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 16. That correspondence shows that

while some iteins were cleared up early on, the most problematic issue that took the longest time

was obtaining a quitclaim deed from Carbon County. That quitclaim deed was requested and

ultimalely prepared by the United States to clear up an earlier perceived potential title defect.

That quitclaim deed was finally signed and delivered in June of 1948, and recorded on June 26,

1948, as sbovm in Plaintiffs Exhibit 17, together with the minutes of the May 18, 1948, meeting

of the Carbon County Board of County Commissioners authorizing the signing of that quitclaim

deed. Those minutes recite that the deed was "for certain property being used by the Bureau of

Reclamation for Scofield Reservoir." The June l, I948, quitclaim deed is graphically illussated

in Plaintiffs Exhibit 18.

10. In 1944, while conespondence btween the United States and the contract vendors

was still ongoing, the vendors (Anna Madsen and Louise M. and Joseph Watts) signed the

waranty deed to tbe United States, conveying the 137.4 acres described in the 1943 land

purchase contact. The wananty deed was rpcorded on November 15, 1944. Plaintiffs Exhibit

19, illusuated by Exhibit 20.

I l. Also earlier, to frfiher facilitate the "acceptance by the United States" ofproperty it

desired for the expanded Scofield Reservoir, the Carbon County Board of County

Commissioners passed aresolution in June of 1944 abating all county tar<es assessed for the year

1e34O4 r'r Oe+S Pq O61a
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/0512006 Page 7 of 13

1944 for more than one dozen tracts of land, including the property described in the October 2,

1943, land purchase contract (identified as Tract No. I in the county resolution.) See Plaintiff s

Exhibit 22, gnphically illushated by Exhibit 23.

12. Inl948, after the recording of the June |, l94E quitclaim deed from Carbon County,

the Bureau of Reclamation deterrnined the United Stares had obtained clear title to the propeny

from lvfadsens and paid the purchase price of $ I ,23 I .20 to vendors in early January of 1949. See

Plaintiffs Exhibits 21.

13. On March 4,1948, Anna W. Madsen signed wo quitclaim deeds, for reasons not

clear, each in favor of both of her two daughters, Johannatr M. Hafen and Alice M. Pannier, as

joint tenants, granting them a variety of lands including but not limited to significant portions of

the Subject Property. The two quitclaim deeds so signed by Anna Madsen in 1948 were not

reconded until April 6, 1956. See PlaintifPs Exhibit 24,

14, The subsequent deeds to the individual Defendants trace their root bsck to either

these March 1948 quitclaim deeds or to the June 1948 quitclaim deed from Carbon County,

evidenced by Exhibit | 7 hereto, or later deeds from fuura W. Madsen and/or l,ouise Watts

beginning in | 956 or later, or some combination thereof. None of the Defendants claim any title

based on the deeds to the United States of the 1940s. The location of the lands claimed bv

Defendants are depicted on Plaintiff s Exhibit 25.

15. The Jacobsen Defendants obtained a copy of a preliminary title report effbctive in

May of 1968, indioating that the United States had some interest in at least some of the Subject

Property. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 26. Also, Defendant Helen [,ouise Watts testified in her

deposition that she may have obtained a title report once from Professional Title in Price, Utah,

-Ent 123404 Bk 0645 Pq O619
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/0512006 Page 8 of 13

years before the lawsuit started trat may have shown the United Strates as having some interest in

the Subject Property, See Plaintiffs Exhibit 27.

16. Carbon Corurty delivered a quitclaim deed dated and sigrred May 27,1936, to Anna

W. Madsen (widow of Neil M. Madsen) and to Abbie C. Madsen (then widow of Andrew C.

Madsen), the propcrty description of wNch includes all the land in the south 7z of the SE 1/4,

ard the south 7z of the SW l/4 of sectionl0. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 31, graphically illustrated by

Exhibit 32. That 1936 Carbon County quitclaim deed follows an auditor's tax deed dated January

3, 1936, to Carbon County, describing the same property. Exhibit 31.

17. The Carbon County find tax sale for 1936 occurrcd on May 29,1936, two days after

the date of the quitclaim deed from Carbon Cowrty. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 33. Carbon County's

December 2l , 1928, record of preliminary tax sales, on which the later | 936 deeds were bas€d,

has a rnore complete handwritten prop€rly description. [t shows that the relevant property there

at issue, assessed toE. B. Jorgensen, described only the land of Madsensouth and east of the

railroad propeQ, and not ttrat of PRWCD north and west of the railroad, and that a redemption

payment was rnade on May 20,1936. See PlaintifPs Exhibit 34.

Conclusions of Law

l. The Court concludes that the 1927 Madsen Deed is ambiguous as to whether or not,

for the propeay in question in this action in sections l0 and I I (mentioned in the fint paragraph

of the lands description in that 1927 Madsen Deed), the Madsen grantees and their successon

were given any of the reserved rights to use those lands when not submerged by waters of the

reservoir, as was more clear for the different lands described in later paragraphs of that deed.

45 Pg rJF?
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 9 of 13

This conclusion of ambiguity is supported by those in the Bureau of Reclamation who over the

years sirrce the federal acquisition have interpreted the language in the federal chain oftitle to

give the Madsen successors such a resewed.ight, as well as by the conduct of the parties in not

earlier pursuing final resolution of the title status in a more timely manner, zuggesting that no one

had 8n absolute sense of confidence in their title claims.

2. The Court concltrdes that the May 27, 1936, quitclaim deed to Anna and Abbie

Madsen from Carbon County was a redemption deed and not a deed resulting fum any final ta,x

sale and did not convey any effective interest in lands theretofore owned by the Price River

Water Conservancy Disbict in sections l0 and I I north and west of the railroad right of way.

3. The Court concludes that the 1943 land purchase contract and the 1944 wa:ranty deed

to the United States from Arun Madsen and Louise and Joseph Watts (the then Madsen

successors) are valid and fully effective conveyances to the United States of the lands described

in those documents. As zuch fee simple title to the lands described therein should now be

quieted in the United States, free and clear of any interest claimed by Defendants in the lands in

sections l 0 and I I specifically described by the 1943 land purchase contract and 1 944 warranty

deed.

4. The Court further concludes &s a matt€r of federal law that adverse possession cannot

be claimed againsthe United States either under the facts of this casc, or under the law as set

forth in 2E U.S.C. $2a09a(n) and United States v. Stubbs ,776 F.2d t472 (loth Cir, t 985).

5. The Court also concludes that Deferdants have not met their burden to support a claim

of estoppel in this case which may underrnine the title of the United States to the subject lands.

Based on all of the evidence before the Court. the Court cannot conclude that the four uaditional

3404 Bk 0645 Fq O6?t
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/0512406 Page 10 of 13

elements of estoppel are here met. In particular, there is insufficient evidence that the fideral

gov€mment agents n 1977 or at other times of any claimed estoppel knew all the facts n€cessary

to supporthe estoppel claimed by Defendants againsthe title of the United States, Also, the

Corut cannot conclude that Defendants or their predecesson in interest, as the parties claiming

estoppel, were ignorant of the tnre facts, given their actual or consfiuctive knowledge of the

recordedocuments establishing the title of the United States. Most importantly to an estoppel

claim againsth€ federal sovereigrq and dispositive ofthis claim, is thal the Court cannot find

any affirmative misconduct on the part of any agent of the United States necessary to support any

such estoppel claim.

6. Lastly, the Court concludes that Defendants have not produced any evidence to

contradictthetitleclaimoftheUnitedStatestotheNorth %of the SW l/4ofsection 10,

acquired by Price River Water Conservancy District in 1928 firom Sarah Reese Jones, as

Administratix of the estate of Martha Reese.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court padially grants and partially denies the motion of the United

States for summary judgrnent to quiet title in the United States.

The rnotion is granted and fee simple title in the United States is hereby quieted as to all

the lands in the North % of the SW l/4 of section 10, and as to all that portion of the subject

lands covered by the 1943 land purchase contract and the 1944 warranty deed to the United

States &rom Anna W. Madsen and Louise M. and Joseph L. Watts, free and clearof any claimed

interests of Defendants. The lands so described in that contract and deed inchde the South half

l0

7zi+o+ Et. o64s 4 oe aa
Case2;99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 1 of 13

of the Southwest quarter and the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, T. 12

S., R. 7 8., S.L,B. & M., to the extent they are locsted south and east of the railroad right of way;

and all the lands in the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quart€r of said section

10, together with the lands in the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section l0

and all the lands within the West % of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section

I I , T. 12 S., R. 7 E,, Sdt Lske Base & Meridian, except to the extent covered by the right of way

of the Denver and Rio Grande Westenn Railroad Co.

The summary judgment motion of the United States is partially,denied as to that portion

of the subject lands in the South 7z of the Southwest quarter and the Southwest quarter of the

Southeast quarter of Section 10, T. 12 S., R. 7 E,, Salt Iake Base & Meridian, to the extent such

lands are located north and west of the railroad right of way. This denial only extends to the

single issue whether Defendants or their predecessors in interest received under the 1927 Madsen

Depd a reserved right to use any part or portion of said lands in section I0 "below and between

the said 7630 contour lirre and the water line of said lPleasant Valley, now Scofield] resenroir,

when the sarne ate not actually covered by the water thereiD, for any and all purposes not

inconsistent with the flowage and storage of water thereon." Subject only to further

determination of whether this reserved use right applies to said lands in section 10, the fee simple

title of the United States in these described lands in section l0 north and west of the railroad right

of way is hereby confirmed and quieted.

The existence and scope of Defendants' claimed reserved use right rurder the 1927

Madsen Deed and the 1927 PRWCD Deed in said lands in section l0 shall be determincd

hereafter in further court proceedings.

lt

n 0645 Fs O623
Case 2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 12 of 13

Datedthis 4F ou, or{H,rw!

Approved:

ARMSTRONG LAW OFFTCES, P.C.

Brent R. Armstrong

Steven R. Paul

Attomeys for llefendants Jacobsen, et al.

ROBiNSON & SHEEN. P.C.

E. Jay Sheen

Attomeys for Defendants Dunn, et al.

l2

4 Bk 0645 91'0624
Case2:99-cv-00145-TS Document 145 Filed 01/0512006 Page 13 of 13

CERTIFTCATE OF SEIIVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of the United States Attorneyts Office, and

that a tnrc and accurate copy of the foregoing [proposed] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR SWTMARY JIJDGMENT, was mailed, United States fint-class postage

prepaid, to each party addressed as shown below, this felfday of Navuh,2005

John R. Woolsey

P.O. Box 392

Morgarl Utah 84050

Colleen Porter

P.O. Box 252

EastCarbon,UT 84520

Rick L. Rose

Kristine M. Larsen

RAY QUNNEY & NEBEKER

Attorneys for Oakland Homes of Utah

36 South State St., Suite 40O

Salt lake City, Utah 8411 I

Brent R. Armstrong

Steven R. Paul

50 W.300 S., Ste. #150

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2006

E. Jay Sheen

Robinson & Sheen

215 So. State St,, Ste.960

salt Lake ciry, uT 841I

l3

Ent 1234U{Bk 0645 Pq 06?5
VIKK!BAHNETT

canHoru cou NTY^ BEcgnoefl 1?O EAST rr4atru , , 

'

PRrcE urAH easot-sosff :

D16n265OgS22

$00.759

05t25t2007

lilailed From 84501

US POSTAGE

o

rg

E

:

tr/

i !

PAUL M. WARNER, US ATTORNEY

185 SOUTH STATE STREET #4OO

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

*r.+|i| 51;i? CoO-:
CARSOH CT'UHTY RECORI}IHG RECEIPT

vltfl(I BemETI, REC0f,DTR

Drte: lhl 17,e007 l1:30fl1

Req Ey: US D€PI 0F THE II{TERI0R

Filed'Ey: UE

Entry Book Page(s) Fee

1a3404 0645 0613-0625 r50.00C

TotaI: 350.00

Document Count: 1