Opinion ID: 2636005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: ¶ 2 In 1957, Roy Okelberry and his sons, E. Ray and Lee, purchased a large tract of land (the Property) in Wasatch County near Wallsburg, Utah. E. Ray and Lee later acquired their father's interest in the Property. Sometime thereafter, Lee sold his interest in the Property to E. Ray and E. Ray's sons, Brian and Eric. E. Ray, Brian, and Eric Okelberry (the Okelberrys) currently own the Property and use it for their livestock operations. ¶ 3 Several unimproved mountain roads cross the Property, all of which begin and end (or connect with roads that begin and end) at points outside of it. Four of these roads are at issue in this case: Circle Springs Road, Thorton Hollow Road, Parker Canyon Road, and Ridge Line Road (collectively, the Four Roads). [3] When Roy, E. Ray, and Lee Okelberry purchased the Property in 1957, fences on its east and south sides separated it from United States Forest Service property, and wire gates along these fences controlled access to the Four Roads, requiring persons entering or exiting the Property to open the gates before proceeding. ¶ 4 In 2001, Wasatch County filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Quiet Title against the Okelberrys, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, [4] and West Daniels Land Association, [5] seeking to have the Four Roads declared dedicated and abandoned to the use of the public pursuant to Utah Code section 72-5-104. [6] During a three-day bench trial, Wasatch County presented several witnesses who testified that they had used the Four Roads without the Okelberrys' permission for recreational purposes during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. These witnesses also testified that although there were gates on the roads, their use of the roads was unrestricted. The Okelberrys presented evidence and testimony that members of the public had not had unrestricted access to the roads, but that the gates on the roads had been locked, at least occasionally, as early as the late 1950s and that No Trespassing, Keep Out, or Private signs were posted. The Okelberrys testified that they had given permission to a large number of people in the community to use their roads and Property and had sold trespass and hunting permits. And witnesses testified that the Okelberrys, in the mid-1990s, placed their Property in a cooperative wildlife management unit for use as a private hunting unit. The Okelberrys and their employees testified that when they encountered persons on the Property or roads without express permission to be there, they asked them to leave. ¶ 5 At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and, later, supplemental findings of fact. The trial court found that there was no public use of the various roads in the 1940s or before and also that no evidence of vehicular use prior to the 1950s existed. The court recognized that there were gates on the roads that the Okelberrys or their employees locked [a]t various times in the past, but found that they were locked on a more permanent basis beginning in the early 1990s. In addition, the court found that [p]rior to the gates being locked, the existence of the gates did not interrupt the public's use of the roads. ¶ 6 In its Conclusions of Law, the trial court stated as follows: Taking even the [Okelberrys'] factual assertions as true, it is clear that individuals using the roads beginning in the late 1950s until the late 1980s or early 1990s used the roads without interruption, they used the roads freely, and though not constantly, they used the roads continuously as they needed. Therefore, [the] Court finds that prior to the interrupting mechanisms being put in place the roads in question were subject to continuous use. . . . The trial court also found that the majority of those using the roads were nonpermissive users and members of the general public. Thus, the court determined that [p]rior to the locking of the gates in the early 1990s the roads were used as public thoroughfares. And the court found that the continuous use as a public thoroughfare continued for at least ten years, if not much longer, or for multiple periods of ten years. The court therefore concluded that Wasatch County had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Four Roads had been abandoned and dedicated to the public. The court decided, however, that Wasatch County was equitably estopped from opening the roads to public use because the Okelberrys had, since 1989, asserted private control over the roads. The court stated that [t]o allow the County now to assert an ownership interest in these roads would cause the Okelberrys injury [and] would be unjust. ¶ 7 Wasatch County appealed the trial court's equitable estoppel determination, and the Okelberrys cross-appealed the court's decision that the Four Roads had been dedicated to the public. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's equitable estoppel decision and upheld its decisions regarding the public dedication of the Four Roads. [7] We granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard for determining whether a road has been continuously used as a public thoroughfare pursuant to Utah Code section 72-5-104. The parties do not challenge, and we do not address, the equitable estoppel issue.