Court Opinion

ID: 9515262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:09.97475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:27.110711
License: Public Domain

ZINTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 25.] I concur that under established jurisprudence, the Town of Keystone was an indispensable party, and therefore, this case must be reversed. However, on retrial, the trial court should reconsider and reconcile an inconsistency in the record (and in its decision) concerning the width of the public road.
[¶ 26.] The parties do not dispute that this road has been impliedly dedicated and accepted as a public roadway since 1883. Moreover, there is no dispute that it is not a simple dirt path or trail with no supporting shoulders or ditches. Rather, Pennington County and the Town improved and paved a modern road. Moreover, they maintained it throughout its lengthy history. The question is whether the improvements and maintenance, the public’s use, and the nature of the road itself are sufficient to constitute an implied dedication *27and acceptance of the shoulders1 and ditches.
[¶ 27.] The trial court ultimately concluded that the shoulders and ditches were not impliedly dedicated and accepted, and therefore, only the pavement was public. However, inconsistently, the trial court acknowledged in a handwritten finding that maintenance over these many years “was done to the shoulder by the city [Town] and county, incidental to the road usage.” This finding of incidental maintenance, and the record evidence supporting it, suggests that the shoulders and ditches were dedicated and accepted by the public along with the pavement.
[¶ 28.] The finding of incidental maintenance, the undisputed evidence' of public improvements, and the nature of the roadway suggest a dedication and acceptance because “[generally, no particular formality is essential to an implied dedication or acceptance of land for a public use.” Smith v. Sponheim, 399 N.W.2d 899, 901 (S.D.1987) (citation omitted). Rather, “[e]onduet on the part of the owner that is clearly expressive of an intention to dedicate usually amounts to dedication, if acted upon by the public in a manner which clearly justifies the inference of an acceptance.” Township of Centerville v. Jenter, 25 S.D. 314, 317, 126 N.W. 575, 576 (1910) (quoting Larson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 19 S.D. 284, 289-90, 103 N.W. 35, 37 (1905)); Roche Realty & Inv. Co. v. Highlands Co., 29 S.D. 169, 177, 135 N.W. 684, 685 (1912) (citations omitted). Therefore, a public entity’s similar improvements have been found to be sufficient to constitute an implied dedication and acceptance. Sponheim, 399 N.W.2d at 903 (grading, graveling, and installation of culverts and a drainage ditch). Maintenance by a public entity may also constitute acceptance. Id. at 903-04 (maintaining, repairing, and removing snow). And, the maintenance need not-be regular. Id. at 904-05 (stating that “evidence of the County’s treatment of the road as a public highway is demonstrated by its continual maintenance of the road, even though such maintenance was not always done on a regular basis”). Moreover, KSD, Inc.’s private maintenance does not necessarily destroy the public dedication and acceptance. This Court has recognized that landowners and governmental entities may, to some extent,- jointly maintain an impliedly dedicated and accepted roadway. Id. at 903-05. Finally, and apart from the County and Town’s improvement and maintenance, the trial court must consider the nature of the public’s use.
[Dedication may be accepted merely by long-continued public use[ ], without any formal act of acceptance, even to the extent of charging the public authorities with liability for failure to keep in repair. This is declared by some courts to be the very highest kind of evidence of acceptance.... There is no established standard by which the use necessary to determine an acceptance by the public may be measured and declared to be sufficient, but the authorities are in agreement to the effect that a use which would naturally follow from the character of the place and the settlement of the community is sufficient.
Miller v. Southard, 38 S.D. 477, 487, 162 N.W. 146, 149 (1917) (citation omitted).
[¶ 29.] In applying these principles it must be reiterated that this is not a simple dirt path or trail: it is a modern road that *28was graded, improved, and paved. Obviously, a paved road of this character in this location may not exist without supporting shoulders and ditches. The photographs and maps confirm that these ditches and shoulders are naturally and, in fact, necessarily required to physically support the pavement. It is also common knowledge that ditches and shoulders would have been created in the process necessary to construct the grade upon which the pavement has been placed. These matters should be considered on retrial because this Court has long noted “the situation of the land over which a way is claimed should exert an important influence upon the question of dedication.” Roche Realty, 29 S.D. at 177, 135 N.W. at 686 (noting in that dispute, the same acts that would warrant the inference of dedication in cities and towns could be insufficient in agricultural areas) (citing 1 Elliott, Roads and Streets § 182 (3d ed.1911)). Consequently, if the shoulders and ditches are necessary to support the pavement, they must be a part of the implied dedication and acceptance.
[¶ 30.] An implied dedication and acceptance is also supported by other record evidence reflecting that the ditches and shoulders are necessary to accommodate the public’s use; i. e., road maintenance, drainage, snow removal, and traffic control signage. An implied dedication and acceptance is finally supported by the fact that the Town2 has maintained the shoulders and ditches at various times, including: 1) road shoulder improvements, such as graveling and leveling; 2) a partial road shoulder repair following a flood; 3) weed clearing and mosquito control on Grizzly Bear Creek; 4) construction of road ditch drainage; 5) posting of signs, including speed limit signs; 6) plowing the snow and use of the shoulder and ditches for snow removal; and 7) cleaning of drainage culverts.
[¶ 31.] On retrial, the trial court should consider the Town and the County’s maintenance of the shoulders and ditches together with the nature of this improved road and the character of the public’s use. Considering these facts, it appears likely that the shoulders and ditches are necessarily a part of the road. If they are a necessary part of the road, the undisputed public dedication and acceptance would not be limited to the pavement.
[¶ 32.] KONENKAMP, Justice, joins this special writing.

. It is only the shoulder adjacent to KSD Inc.’s property that started this dispute. However, other than one specific Town repair caused by flooding, we have not been directed to evidence reflecting that this portion of the road's shoulder was created or maintained differently than the rest of the shoulders or ditches.

. Although there is a suggestion in the briefs that some of the Town’s acts of maintenance are not relevant because they occurred within the twenty-year prescriptive period, the suggestion is misplaced. ‘'[Pjroof of use[]for a period much shorter than that required to show title by prescription may be sufficient to prove [the more limited question of] intent and dedication.” Mason v. City of Sioux Falls, 2 S.D. 640, 648, 51 N.W. 770, 773 (1892). Moreover, there is no dispute that before the Town began maintenance, the County was performing that duty. Consequently, there has been public maintenance of this roadway since its inception.