Court Opinion

ID: 9789063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:27:07.211842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:19.233450
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTINEZ
dissenting:
I.
I find two grave errors in the majority analysis which cause me to dissent. First, and most troublesome, is the majority’s insertion of an additional requirement into the test for prescription of a public highway. Second, the majority conflates the test for whether a road is established by adverse possession with the determination of whether the route is a road in the first instance. I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to add an additional requirement of government action to the test for prescription given the fact that the legislature has not changed the statute in over one hundred years. Furthermore, I find that the majority’s analysis of the threshold question of whether a particular route is a road under the prescription statute incorrectly includes elements of prescription. I respectfully dissent.
II.
The General Assembly enacted the section under which this case arises in 1893. Ch. *417147, see. I, 1893 Colo. Sess. Laws 435. The legislature has not changed the law since that time. “The following are declared to be public highways ... (c) All roads over private lands that have been used adversely without interruption or objection on the part of the owners of such lands for twenty consecutive years.” § 43 — 2—201(l)(c), 11 C.R.S. (2003). This section codified the common law and definitively established that all roads on private lands that have been used adversely for more than twenty years, without interruption or objection by the owner, become public highways. Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Flickinger, 687 P.2d 975, 980 (Colo.1984).
We have interpreted this section in our previous cases and have held that a party seeking to establish a road across private property as a public highway must demonstrate:
(1) members of the public must have used the road under a claim of right and in a manner adverse to the landowner’s property interest;
(2) the public must have used the road without interruption for the statutory period of twenty years; and
(3) the landowner must have had actual or implied knowledge of the public’s use of the road and made no objection to such use.
Id. Thus, our case law merely outlines what the statute dictates: there must be adverse, uninterrupted use for twenty years, with the owner’s knowledge.
I disagree with the majority’s analysis and application of this test because the majority attempts to separate our requirement that the use must be “under a claim of right and in a manner adverse” into two distinct requirements. As I do not find that we have ever stated that use under a claim of right is any different than adverse use, I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis. Moreover, the majority’s further assertion that this additional requirement applies only to public entities is untenable. I find the majority’s departure from our previous case law, despite the fact that legislature has not changed the statute in over one hundred years, an exercise of authority more properly left to the General Assembly.
First, the terms “use under a claim of right” and “adverse use” are synonymous. The majority contends that we have developed “two parallel lines of cases,” one which addresses “claim of right” and the other which addresses “adversity”. Maj. Op. at 410. However, the more obvious reading of our previous cases is that we have used the term “claim of right” only as explanation of, and thus synonymously with, the term “adverse use.” For example, in Lieber v. People, 33 Colo. 493, 499, 81 P. 270, 271 (1905), we stated that to give a road a public character the use under section 43-2-201(l)(c) must have been “adverse (that is, under a claim of right).” See also Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 90 Colo. 23, 26, 5 P.2d 873, 875 (1931). Thus, both of these terms characterize the type of use that is required before a claim of prescription can be established: the use must be hostile to the owner’s rights.
The case law in Colorado illustrates that we have used these terms synonymously to describe the single requirement of adverse use by the public. In State v. Cyphers, 74 P.3d 447 (Colo.App.2003), for example, the court of appeals found that ranchers’, hunters’, sightseers’, and oil explorers’ use of the road supported a finding of adverse use. The court did not require a claim of right by any public entity, pointing out that “[i]t is not necessary that a governmental subdivision maintain the road to retain its status as a public highway.” Id. at 450. Thus, the court of appeals clearly did not require anything more than adverse use by the public to establish a public highway by prescription. Similarly, in Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615, 620 (Colo.App.2001), the court of appeals held that a prescriptive right had not been established because there was not adverse use by the public. The court concluded that the use was “sporadic in nature, rather than part of a pattern of general public use.” Id. The court made no mention of a requirement that the county had to make some overt act evidencing that the use was under a claim of right, holding only that there was not a sufficient showing of adverse use. Id. The court of appeals has used the term “claim of right” in place of adverse use. Bd. of County *418Comm’rs v. Kobobel, 74 P.3d 401, 405 (Colo.App.2002). However, in that case the court found only that the public’s use was not over the length of the entire road and therefore a public highway was not established. Id. The court never considered the lack of any action by a public entity thus illustrating that the court was merely using the terms adverse use and use under a claim of right interchangeably. These cases confirm that although the facts in some cases involve action by a public entity, we have never held that such public action is a separate or additional requirement. Such action serves merely as evidence illustrating adverse use. In sum, we have required only that the use, whether by the general public or a public entity, be adverse to the landowner’s interest.
We have further defined adverse use as “actual, visible, exclusive, hostile.” Mayer, 90 Colo. at 26, 5 P.2d at 875. This definition is consistent with both the definitions of “adverse use” and “claim of right” stated in Black’s Law Dictionary. “Adverse use” is defined as “use without license or permission.” Black’s Law Dictionary 53 (6th ed.1990). “Adverse” is defined further with specific regard to use of land: use of land is “adverse, as against owner, if it is not made in subordination to him, is open and notorious.” Id. The “claim of right doctrine,” in regard to adverse possession, is defined as a claimant “in possession as owner, with intent to claim the land as his or her own, and not in recognition of or subordination to record title owner.” Id. at 248. Both terms explain that the use must be hostile and not in subordination to the record property owner.
In short, these terms all serve to explain, and differentiate, adverse use from permissive use. This distinction is important because if the evidence shows that the use was permissive, there can be no prescriptive right. Mayer, 90 Colo. at 26, 5 P.2d at 874. As explained in the Restatement of Property, “claim of right” does not mean that the user must claim entitlement or title, as sometimes mistakenly asserted, but merely that the user must not behave as if no adverse use were being asserted. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.16 cmt. f (2000). “Claim of right” therefore “adds little to the requirements expressed by the ‘open or notorious’ and continuity requirements.” Id. Thus, the real question posed by the requirement that the use be adverse or under a claim of right is whether the public used the land without permission and in a manner that was hostile to the true owner. This evidence then serves to illustrate that the public was asserting its ownership over the property— the backbone of a claim of prescription. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. W.H.I., Inc., 992 F.2d 1061, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). Action by the county could certainly be part of the evidence used to show an adverse use. However, county action is not a requisite for a showing of adverse use. See id. (County’s actions “serve only to illustrate notice of adverse, open, and notorious use by the public.”).
Although recognizing that “the claim of right requirement is integrally intertwined with the adversity requirement,” Maj. Op. at 412, the majority still argues that we have actually established two separate requirements for a showing of adverse use. The majority states that in Mayer, “we formally recognized that the public must make some public claim of right in order to establish a prescriptive easement.” Maj. Op. at 411. However, in that case we stated only that the public must have used the land, “adversely under claim or color of right.” Mayer, 90 Colo. at 26, 5 P.2d at 874. Furthermore, we went on in that case to equate the terms: the use must be adverse “that is, under a claim of right.” Id. at 26, 5 P.2d at 875. Although Mayer supports the proposition that the use must be adverse to the owner, thus evidencing a claim of ownership, that case says nothing to indicate that the evidence showing adverse use would be any different from that showing a claim of right.
Bolstering the point that “claim of right” is merely another way of saying “adverse use” is our outline of the requirements to establish a public highway across private property in Flickinger. There we outlined three requirements. Under the first, we stated “members of the public must have used the road under a claim of right and in a manner adverse to the landowner’s property interest.” Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980. Although *419the majority points to the “and” combining claim of right and in a manner adverse in Flickinger, and a comma separating claim of right and adverse in Simon v. Pettit, 687 P.2d 1299 (Colo.1984),1 I find more persuasive the manner in which we initially laid out those requirements in Flickinger. We outlined only three requirements and numbered them accordingly. Had we intended to require four elements, I believe that we would have done so, or at least noted that the three requirements included subparts. More importantly, we did not analyze the terms use under a claim of right and adverse use differently or separate them in any way. Instead, we disposed of the first prong of the test in three sentences, and we moved on to discuss the plaintiffs constitutional claims. Thus, I have trouble reaching the majority’s conclusion that we have previously established more than the three elements listed in Flick-inger.
Law in other states supports this analysis. Contrary to the majority’s assertion that many cases require both adversity and a public claim of right,” Maj. Op. at 414-416, Appendix A, the Restatement clearly states that a majority of states do not require governmental action to establish a public highway by prescription.2 Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.18 cmt. f (2000). States that do not adopt this approach base their conclusion on statutory language requiring governmental action. For example, the Supreme Court of Idaho has recognized that adverse use and use under a claim of right are synonymous. The Idaho Supreme Court outlined its requirements which included one that the use must be “adverse and under a claim of right.” Hodgins v. Sales, 139 Idaho 225, 76 P.3d 969, 973 (2003). The court went on to explain that these two terms are synonymous: “adverse use, also referred to as hostile use or use under a claim of right.” Id. at 975; see also Williams v. Harrsch, 297 Or. 1, 681 P.2d 119, 123 (1984) (“To establish a public roadway by prescription the use must be adverse or under a claim of right and not merely by permission of the landowner.”). Although some other states have laws which require official action, these cases support nothing more than a public policy argument that such a change should be made. See, e.g., Bd. of Comm’rs v. Friendly Haven Ranch Co., 32 N.M. 342, 257 P. 998, 998 (1927) (Statute defined public highways as all roads dedicated to public use or “recognized and maintained by the corporate authorities of any county.”). Colorado’s law does not presently include such a requirement and any change to our law is exclusively within the province of the legislature.
Second, the majority states that only public entities are subject to this additional requirement. Although the majority points to different language discussing the requirements for public and private prescriptive rights, we have never held public entities to a different standard than private individuals. For example, in Shively v. Board of County Commissioners, 159 Colo. 353, 357, 411 P.2d 782, 784 (1966), we analyzed the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of use under a claim of right; we stated that there is a presumption that the use is adverse when it has been made for the prescribed *420amount of time.3 We went on to say that the “rule is no different with respect to presumptive rights gained by the public under [section 43-2-201].” Id. at 357-58, 411 P.2d at 784. Thus, not only did we equate a claim of right with adverse possession, we specifically stated that the test of adversity is the same for public and private entities.
Furthermore, although our language varies in our explanation of the requirements for a prescriptive right, the substance of the requirements is the same. In the context of a private prescriptive easement, we have stated that the easement is established if the use is: “1) open or notorious, 2) continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and 3) the use was either a) adverse or b) pursuant to an attempted, but ineffective grant.” Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938, 950 (Colo.2002) (citing, e.g., Restatement (Third) Property 2.17, 2.16). These requirements mirror those that we have outlined for the establishment of a public highway by prescription. First, the use must be open or notorious. This element is identical to our requirement for a public prescriptive right that the landowner have actual or implied knowledge of the public’s use. Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980. The landowner could not have such knowledge if the use were not open or notorious. Second, the use must continue for the prescriptive period. This requirement mirrors what we have required of the public — the use must continue for the statutory period of twenty years. Id. Third, in the context of a private prescriptive easement, we stated that the use must be adverse or pursuant to an attempted but ineffective grant. Again, we required adverse use just as we have for public prescriptive rights. Id. We have never found adverse use, in either a public or private prescriptive rights case, and then denied the right for lack of a showing that the use was under a claim of right. In short, we have never required more of the public than a private individual to gain a prescriptive right.
The majority’s desire to require an overt act on the part of public entities before a road can be established also confuses the test of adverse use with the determination of whether a route constitutes a road in the first place. As I feel that the distinction between these two issues may clarify my disagreement with the majority, I will discuss that issue next.
III.
We have stated that an initial question in a prescriptive rights case is whether the route in question comes within the definition of a “road” so that it may be declared a public highway. Simon, 687 P.2d at 1302. The majority appears to combine the initial determination of whether the route in question could even be declared a “road,” so as to have section 43-2-201(l)(c) apply, with the inquiry of whether a public highway was established by prescription. The majority concludes that the roadway was merely a footpath. However, the majority then argues that in order to turn a footpath into a public highway, all of the elements of prescription must be established. As I find that the statute and all of the elements of prescription do not apply unless the route in question is first determined to be a road, I disagree with the majority’s analysis.
The word “road” “is a generic term and includes overland ways of every character; the scope to be given it, depending on the *421context in which it appears.” Id. (quoting Hale v. Sullivan, 146 Colo. 512, 518, 362 P.2d 402, 405 (1961)). Thus, the context determines whether the term should have a broad or a narrow interpretation. Id.
In Simon, we considered three things in deciding whether urban footpaths that cut through a vacant lot could constitute roads and thus come under the provisions of section 43-2-201(l)(c) for a prescriptive highway. First, we looked at the intention of the legislature and decided that when the legislature adopted the statute it did not intend for eighteen-inch urban footpaths to be considered public highways. Id. at 1302. Second, we addressed whether there was any evidence that the city had adopted the footpaths as roads. Id. at 1303. Third, we discussed the public policy behind rigidly applying the statute to include such shortcuts. Id. at 1303-04. Applying all of these factors, we held that the footpaths in question did not come under the definition of a road so as to come under section 43-2-201(l)(c). Id. at 1304. Thus, we stated, we did not need to address the additional issue discussed by the court of appeals: whether the public acquired prescriptive rights. Id.
Simon therefore illustrates that the initial determination of whether a route is a road, thus implicating section 43-2-201(l)(c), is different from the question of whether or not a public highway is established under section 43-2-201(l)(c). Although we considered evidence in that ease of whether the city had accepted the paths as public streets, we did so in the context of whether the road at issue fell under the definition of road so as to enable the prescription statute to apply. Furthermore, we specifically recognized that “section 43-2-201(l)(c) does not require the city to expend funds or otherwise demonstrate its willingness to accept highways established by prescription.” Id. at 1303. We stated that such evidence would strongly indicate that a path had acquired the status of a public highway. Id. However, those considerations were made in the context of whether the footpaths were roads so as to cause section 43 — 2—201(1)(c) to apply.
In short, the preliminary question of whether a route comes under the term “road” as used in the statute governing public highway prescription resolves only whether the statute applies. That determination is separate and distinct from the question of whether the public has established a public highway by prescription. If the majority truly believes the route at issue here is not a road, it would be more appropriate for the majority to resolve the case on that issue alone as we did in Simon, and leave the law of public prescription unaltered.
IV.
In sum, I disagree with the majority’s requirement that in order for a public highway to be established by prescription, an official governmental entity must make some formal action which the majority calls a “claim of right.” I believe that we have required only a showing of adverse use, which is synonymous with use under a claim of right. Thus, I find that the majority’s requirement is wholly new to our test for prescription as it has stood for over one hundred years. Furthermore, because I also disagree with the majority’s analysis of whether the route in question is a road, I believe the trial court and the court of appeals decided this case correctly. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice MULLARKEY joins in this dissent.

. In Flickinger, we stated that the use must be "under a claim of right and in a manner adverse to the landowner’s interest.” Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980. In Simon, which was not decided on the basis of prescriptive rights, we noted the requirements of prescription and stated that the public must use a road "adversely, under a claim of right.” Simon, 687 P.2d at 1302. Thus, we have used both the word "and” and a comma to separate these two descriptions of adverse use.

. States that adopt the lost-grant theory of adverse possession have trouble extending prescription to the public. See Mihalczo v. Woodmont, 175 Conn. 535, 400 A.2d 270, 272-73 (1978); Kratina v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 219 Kan. 499, 548 P.2d 1232 (1976); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.18 cmt. f (2000). The lost grant theory reasons that a landowner would not acquiesce in the use of land without expressly granting such a right. Kratina, 548 P.2d at 1235. However, as there can be no grant without a definite grantee, courts that adopt the lost-grant theory face the problem that the public is an indefinite grantee. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.18 cmt. f (2000). Most courts have sidestepped this legal fiction and allowed a servitude for the public by finding an implied dedication to the general public. Id. Thus, "the majority of American courts have permitted the acquisition of servitudes by long-continued public use." Id.

. The majority's assertion that Flickinger overruled Shively is problematic for two reasons. First, Flickinger quotes Shively approvingly. Specifically, Flickinger says: "A party relying on section 43-2-201(l)(c) is aided by a presumption that 'the character of the use is adverse where such use is shown to have been made for a prescribed period of time.’" Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980 (emphasis added) (quoting Shively, 159 Colo. at 357, 411 P.2d at 784). More importantly, but more subtly, our traditional presumption that public use is adverse when it continues for the prescribed period (twenty years) is further evidence that we have never before required a separate showing of a "claim of right” by a public entity. Such a "claim of right” does not fall under the presumption; the presumption only refers to adversity. Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980; Shively, 159 Colo, at 357, 411 P.2d at 784. Yet, no case employing the presumption has gone on to examine whether there was a public claim of right. Consequently, any reference to “claim of right” as a requirement distinct from adversity necessarily arises for the first time in the majority’s opinion in this case. Because this is the first instance in which we require a showing of "claim of right,” it is this opinion rather than Flickinger that overrules Shively.