Opinion ID: 2635849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: period of ten years

Text: ¶ 22 With respect to the third element of the Dedication Statute, the ten-year period, the Butlers argue that the trial court failed to identify a ten-year period of time in which the Road was continuously used as a public thoroughfare. They suggest that the trial court's finding that the Road was continuously used as a public thoroughfare from approximately 1925 to 1980a period of fifty-five yearsis legally inadequate because the court failed to specifically pinpoint one ten-year period during those years. ¶ 23 We have explained that, under the Dedication Statute, [c]ontinuous use as a public thoroughfare must occur for at least ten years. [33] The court of appeals concluded that this permits a finding of public dedication based on a time period greater than ten years. [34] We agree. Here, the trial court's finding of fifty-five years of continuous use is more than adequate to support its determination that the Road was abandoned and dedicated to the public under the Dedication Statute. Thus, the court of appeals correctly affirmed the trial court's finding that the Road was continuously used as a public thoroughfare for a period of ten years.