Opinion ID: 882872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the curative statute

Text: BCC argues that the trial court erred in declaring that the curative statute converted the public prescriptive easement into a county road. The curative statute at issue reads: All highways, roads, lanes, streets, alleys, courts, places and bridges laid out or erected by the public or now traveled or used by the public, or if laid out or erected by others, dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such by the partition of real property, are public highways. Section 32-103, RCM 1947. (repealed in 1959). The trial court concluded that: The record taken as a whole fails to show that the disputed road was laid out or erected by the public, dedicated or abandoned to the public or made such by the partition of real property... . Since the trial court concluded that the road could not become a county road by virtue of its being laid out or erected by the public or dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such by a partition, then the only choice available to establish that the disputed road is a public road would be that it was traveled or used by the public, as in a public prescriptive easement. Because we have concluded that there was no public prescriptive easement, then the curative statute could not be applied to create a public road out of the road in dispute. We hold that the disputed road is not encumbered by a public prescriptive easement nor does it qualify as a county road under the curative statute. REVERSED AND REMANDED for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, HUNT, GRAY, WEBER and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.