Opinion ID: 170799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's September 2001 Decision Quieting Title in Landowners in Possession of the Land

Text: First, in a September 2001 decision, the court rejected Utah's contention that the 1856 meander line should be deemed the ordinary high water mark as of 1896 (the time of statehood). The court reasoned that the actual ordinary high water mark as of 1896 had been obliterated and that the reasons offered by Utah for defaulting to the 1856 meander line were not persuasive. Therefore, the district court adopted the approach of the Utah Supreme Court in the Provo City cases ( Provo City v. Jacobsen, 111 Utah 39, 176 P.2d 130 (1947); Provo City v. Jacobson, 111 Utah 68, 181 P.2d 213 (1947); and Provo City v. Jacobsen, 117 Utah 507, 217 P.2d 577, 578-79 (1950)). In those cases, the Utah Supreme Court held that the state had the burden of proving the location of the ordinary high water mark at statehood. The court found that the State had failed to establish that location, and it then quieted title in favor of landowners who could offer evidence of historical title, use, and possession at the time of statehood. In the instant case, the district court followed that approach. It stated: [g]iven [Utah's] failure to submit evidence to meet its burden of proving the ordinary high water mark on the date of statehood and [the individual landowner's] evidence of historical uses on the lands in question below the meander line, this court finds that title should be and is quieted in the Defendants in possession of the land. Aplt's App. vol. I, at 355. In denying Utah's motion to reconsider this initial ruling, the district court explained that its decision had not determined which particular landowners possessed land adjoining the lake. It observed that [a]ll of the defendant[ ] [landowners] will need to establish their title, usage, and possession of the land in order for boundaries to be set. Aplt's App. vol. II, at 409. The court later clarified that this initial ruling did not apply to land in the Powell Slough.