Opinion ID: 3062213
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: San Juan County’s Claim

Text: For claimants other than states, “Congress . . . limited the waiver” of sovereign immunity in the Quiet Title Act to actions filed within twelve years of the date of accrual. Knapp v. United States, 636 F.2d 279, 282 (10th Cir. 1980) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f) (now 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g)); see Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 599 F.3d at 1175. The twelve-year period begins to run when the United States gives notice that it does not recognize (or will not continue to recognize) the legitimacy of a claimant’s use of federal lands. George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942, 946-47 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 432 (2012). In other words, the period begins when the Quiet Title Act claimant “knew or should have known of the existence of some assertion—some claim— by the government of an adverse right.” Id. at 947.7 The “assertion” by the United States need only be sufficient to put potential plaintiffs on notice of the need to timely bring a quiet title action to protect their rights. See id. This is as an “exceedingly light” trigger “for starting [the] twelve-year clock running.” Id. at 944. But it is a necessary one 7 Although the county is a political subdivision of Utah, it correctly chose not to claim to be entitled to the more lenient limitation period applicable to suits by states. See Park Cnty., Mont. v. United States, 626 F.2d 718, 720 (9th Cir. 1980); see also N. Mariana Islands v. United States, 279 F.3d 1070, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the differential treatment, with respect to the limitation period, of states relative to other Quiet Title Act plaintiffs). -9- Appellate Case: 11-4146 Document: 01019240283 Date Filed: 04/25/2014 Page: 10 because we are required to strictly construe the twelve-year limitation period in favor of the United States. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 599 F.3d at 1176. Since San Juan County filed its complaint on June 14, 2004, it is timely as long as the claim accrued no earlier than June 14, 1992. The dispute over the timeliness of the county’s claim centers on whether closures of roads within Salt Creek Canyon by the United States gave sufficient notice of its assertion of exclusive control. Two closures, illustrated in the attached map, are pertinent here. In 1969, the United States closed the “historical access road,”8 which was used to access the Salt Creek Road from the Canyonlands’ park entrance road, and constructed a new, more circuitous access road. Although the county does not claim a right-of-way to the historical access road, the United States argues the historical access road and the Salt Creek Road were merely different segments of the same continuous road. Thus, it explains, its closure of the historical access road placed the county on notice of its exclusive claim to the Salt Creek Road. The United States also points to its mid-1970s closure of a road segment south of the claimed road in Salt Creek Canyon. 9 This closure started just south of the Bates Wilson Camp and ran south through Upper Jump. While 8 To be clear, our use of the term “historical access road” refers only to the small portion of the Salt Creek Road immediately northeast of Cave Spring. See Attachment A. 9 Like the historical access road, this segment is not part of the road the county claims. And unlike the closure of part of the historical access road, the closure of this segment did not threaten to impede the public’s access to the claimed Salt Creek Road. - 10 - Appellate Case: 11-4146 Document: 01019240283 Date Filed: 04/25/2014 Page: 11 this segment is located to the south of the claimed road, it is, like the historical access road, nearly adjacent to the claimed section of the road. According to the county, these closures did not give notice of an exclusive claim because the United States continued to allow the public to use Salt Creek Road, which remained accessible via the new access road. In the county’s view, the public’s use under the right-of-way can “peaceably coexist,” George, 672 F.3d at 947, with the ownership interest asserted by the United States.10 The Ninth Circuit’s decision in McFarland v. Norton illustrates this peaceful coexistence. 425 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir. 2005). There, the claimant owned a parcel of land within Glacier National Park and sought to enforce an easement to a road serving as the primary route to the claimant’s land. Id. at 725. The United States had engaged in a series of progressively more restrictive management activities, but the court concluded they were not sufficiently inconsistent with the claimed easement to put the claimant on notice of the United States’ claim to exclusive ownership or exclusive control over the road. Id. at 727-28. In the 1950s, the United States stopped plowing the road. Id. Later, it banned snowmobiles. Id. In the 1970s, it erected wooden barriers but allowed the claimant to move them. Id. at 725. In 1976, it erected a locked cable barrier to prevent access, but unlocked the barrier whenever the claimant requested. Id. at 725-26. Finally, 10 It appears the permit gate (see Attachment A) was put in place after 1995 and access down Salt Creek Road was thereafter limited; see discussion infra pp. 14-15. - 11 - Appellate Case: 11-4146 Document: 01019240283 Date Filed: 04/25/2014 Page: 12 in 1999, it told the claimant the road would be closed to everyone during the winter, and modified the lock system to deny the claimant winter access. Id. at 726. Although the United States freely exercised its “power to regulate” the road, none of its pre-1999 management activities started the limitation period because they did not put the claimant on notice of any “claim of exclusive ownership.” Id. at 727. In essence, until the management activities were inconsistent with the claimed right-of-way, they did not provide the notice necessary to start the running of the limitation period. The same principle applies here. Perhaps the closure and demolition of the short historical access road and construction of the new access road would be sufficient to put the county on notice of the United States’ claim of its right to exclude others from using the historical access road. The same is, of course, true of the closure of the road segment to the south of the claimed right-of-way. But, as the judge found, the United States conscientiously ensured the public could continue to use Salt Creek Road. Because the public continued to have access to Salt Creek Road consistent with the claimed right-ofway, neither of the United States’ road closures provided the county with sufficient notice of the United States’ claim of a right to exclude the public, as would be necessary to assert a claim of exclusive ownership to Salt Creek Road (its right to exclude offers). See George, 672 F.3d at 947. The United States bristles at this result. It intimates the claim to the road was artificially constructed to omit any portion of the road for which the county might have had some notice of the United States’ claim. The United States may be right, but we see - 12 - Appellate Case: 11-4146 Document: 01019240283 Date Filed: 04/25/2014 Page: 13 no reason this is improper. As the original plaintiff, the county is master of its own claim. Cf. Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336, 1339 (10th Cir. 1996) (observing plaintiffs, as “master[s] of the claim,” may prevent removal by omitting federal claims, “even if one is available”). As such, it may properly limit the scope of its claim to avoid both untimely claims and issues irrelevant to the Angel Arch access they wish to preserve. The county’s claim is timely.