Opinion ID: 874059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sawtelle Subdivision Plat Unambiguously Makes a Common Law Dedication

Text: There are two elements of a common law dedication: (1) an offer by the owner unequivocally indicating an intent to dedicate the land; and (2) an acceptance of the offer. Worley Highway Dist. v. Yacht Club of Coeur D'Alene, Ltd., 116 Idaho 219, 224, 775 P.2d 111, 116 (1989). The parties do not dispute the fact that an offer to dedicate, if made, was accepted when the Appellants' lots were sold with reference to the recorded Sawtelle Subdivision plat. See Smylie v. Pearsall, 93 Idaho 188, 191, 457 P.2d 427, 430 (1969) (stating that a dedication is complete when the owner sells lots by reference to the recorded plat). The controversy in this case is whether the plat clearly and unequivocally offers to dedicate the disputed road. Saddlehorn Ranch Landowner's, Inc. v. Dyer, 146 Idaho 747, 751-52, 203 P.3d 677, 681-82 (2009). Again, this Court interprets the plat like a deed and will apply the plain language of the deed if it is unambiguous. Lattin, 149 Idaho at 501, 236 P.3d at 1261. An instrument is ambiguous if it is subject to conflicting interpretations. Porter, 146 Idaho at 404, 195 P.3d at 1217. Whether an instrument is ambiguous is a question of law subject to free review. C & G, Inc. v. Rule, 135 Idaho 763, 765, 25 P.3d 76, 78 (2001). The plat depicts the disputed road with a label saying 60' road & utility easement. The owners' certificate states, The dedicated 60ft. roadway and utility right-of-way will allow sewer, water, electrical, telephone and other utilities to be installed in the right of way. [4] Importantly, the certificate further provides: All roads are hereby dedicated to the public, and that the developer or the homeowners association will maintain all roadways until such time as Fremont County accepts said maintenance. . . . Regardless of whether the district court should have considered the Woolstenhume affidavit, the plat unambiguously dedicates the disputed road to the public. The only reasonable interpretation of the phrase all roads are hereby dedicated to the public is that the owners intended for all the roads that appear on the plat to be public unless specifically designated otherwise. See Ponderosa Home Site Lot Owners, 139 Idaho at 701, 85 P.3d at 677 (finding a dedication where the plat stated that the owners dedicate to the public, for the use of the public as highways the roads shown upon the plat); Deffenbaugh v. Wash. Water Power Co., 24 Idaho 514, 514-21, 135 P. 247, 247-48 (1913) (observing that the streets on the plat were public because plat stated that it dedicated the streets and avenues shown). Further, this road is sixty feet wide, the same width as the C-shaped public road on the map. Because the disputed road unambiguously appears on the plat, it is a dedicated road. Appellants argue that the road is private and only merely a utility easement. They note that the road lies on top of two lots, while the C-shaped road does not. It is separated from the C-shaped public road with a solid line, rather than a dashed line that runs through other road intersections. They also point out that the label for the road contains the phrase utility easement and that the road itself is filled in with a hatch pattern usually used to designate easements as described according to the plat legend. The disputed road is depicted with cross-hatching, which typically denotes an easement. There are other crosshatched rights of way on the plat, but the key distinction is that the disputed road is labeled as a road and utility easement on a plat that dedicates all roads to public use, while the other rights of way are labeled only as utility easements. Further, the road's label by its plain language does not dedicate a utility easement, but instead dedicates a 60' road & utility easement. The owner's certificate also states that the utilities would be installed in the right of way. The only reasonable way to read this plat is that it identifies a road and a utility easement. The hatch pattern simply shows that the road is on top of a utility easement. The district court correctly held as a matter of law that the disputed road is public by common law dedication.