Opinion ID: 2571651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A common law dedication of the land did occur.

Text: The record also establishes that a road was created by common law dedication. The elements of a common law dedication as established in Pullin v. Victor are (1) an offer by the owner, clearly and unequivocally indicated by his words or acts evidencing his intention to dedicate the land to a public use, and (2) an acceptance of the offer by the public. 103 Idaho 879, 881, 655 P.2d 86, 88 (Ct.App.1982). The court in Worley Highway District v. Yacht Club of Coeur D'Alene, Ltd., found that [t]he act of filing and recording a plat or map is sufficient to establish the intent on the part of the owner to make a donation to the public. 116 Idaho 219, 224, 775 P.2d 111, 116 (1989) (quoting ( Boise City v. Hon, 14 Idaho 272, 279, 94 P. 167, 168-69 (1908)). The second elementacceptance of the offer by the publicis not evidenced by the subjective intent of purchasers of property whose instruments of title make specific reference to a plat, but rather by the fact that lots had been sold or otherwise conveyed with specific reference to the apposite plat. Id. at 225, 775 P.2d at 117. There are two separate conveyances at issue here to which appellants claim the doctrine of common law dedication applies: the 1901 transaction between the miners and the County and the subsequent homestead patents granted by the federal government. However, the 1901 petition by the miners and quitclaim was not a common law dedication. A common law dedication requires that the offeror be an owner of the land, and the miners had no ownership interest in the unreserved federal land. Therefore the petition for dedication and quitclaim is not a valid common law dedication. The second transaction, however, is a valid common law dedication of the road. The federal government was the owner of the land, and it filed and recorded a valid plat. That is sufficient under Worley to show intent on the part of the owner to dedicate public areas of the plat. The district court decision on this issue cited Nesbitt v. Demasters, 44 Idaho 143, 255 P. 408 (1927), for the proposition that a valid common law dedication offer and description must be clear and certain. That the road was clearly marked and labeled on the plat and patent is sufficient to create an offer to dedicate a public road. In a case where the roads are not yet built and the plat is part of a subdivision plan, it makes more sense to require a metes and bounds type of description, but where, as here, there is already a road in existence and labeled and marked on the map, the offer requirement is met. Furthermore, the grant of homestead patents constitutes a valid acceptance of a common law dedication. In Worley this Court reversed a trial judge for incorrectly looking to the intentions of the purchaser to determine if the purchaser intended to accept the government's implied offer of dedication. 116 Idaho at 225, 775 P.2d at 117. In this case the fact that a plat was validly filed and patents sold referencing the plat and the road constitutes common law dedication. In Smylie v. Pearsall, the court stated that [w]hen an owner of land plats the land, files the plat for record, and sells lots by reference to the recorded plat, a dedication of public areas indicated by the plat is accomplished. This dedication is irrevocable except by statutory process. 93 Idaho 188, 191, 457 P.2d 427, 430 (1969). The patents were granted to the homesteaders with reference to the valid plats and with the Indian Creek Road marked and labeled. There was a common law dedication of the road independent of the intent of the homesteaders.