2018 SD 24
S.D.2018Background
- William and Judy Coester own property accessed by South Bay Drive, Snyder Drive, and Dinkle Drive in Waubay Township; these roads connect to BIA Highway 500.
- The roads were platted and dedicated to public use, but the Township never maintained or removed snow from them despite repeated requests.
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Township to maintain the roads; they admitted the Township had never maintained them but pointed to two township-granted utility easements and asserted prior township jurisdiction.
- The circuit court found the roads were not part of the statutory "township road system," the Township never approved a plat accepting the roads, and the easements were solely for utilities; it denied the writ.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and mandamus denial for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 31-13-1 requires the Township to maintain any road within the township | Coester: statute requires maintenance of all roads within the township, so Township must maintain these roads | Township: statute requires maintenance only of "township roads" as defined by the township road system | Held: statute limits duty to "township roads" on the township road system; no duty to maintain all roads within township |
| Whether roads were "township roads" by being on the township road system | Coester: roads should be deemed township roads (public highways) and thus maintained | Township: roads are not section-line, judicially-declared, impliedly-accepted, or board-designated roads | Held: parties agreed roads are not on the statutory township road system; no evidence of implied acceptance or board designation |
| Whether dedication and acceptance created town maintenance obligations | Coester: plats dedicated roads to the public; dedication implies township responsibility | Township: no township signature/approval on plats and no evidence of acceptance | Held: dedication requires public entity acceptance; record shows no acceptance by Township, so no maintenance duty |
| Whether roads qualified as "township highways" requiring maintenance | Coester: roads function as highways open to public vehicular travel | Township: even if public travel occurs, administration/acceptance by township is required for maintenance duty | Held: Petitioners provided no evidence Township administered or maintained roads; not grounds for mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- Krsnak v. S.D. Dep’t of Env’t & Nat. Res., 824 N.W.2d 429 (2012) (standard of review for mandamus and statutory interpretation principles)
- Selway Homeowners Ass’n v. Cummings, 657 N.W.2d 307 (2003) (requirements for dedication and acceptance of a public highway)
- Calhoon v. Sell, 71 F. Supp. 2d 990 (D.S.D. 1998) (older interpretation that townships must maintain highways within township under prior statute)
- Niemi v. Fredlund Twp., 867 N.W.2d 725 (2015) (discussion of acceptance and maintenance of township roads)
- Willoughby v. Grim, 581 N.W.2d 165 (1998) (prior statutory language regarding township or secondary highways and supervisory duties)
- S.D. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. S.D. Dep’t of Transp., 305 N.W.2d 682 (1981) (mandamus requires a clear legal right to the requested action)