Garfield Cnty. v. United States
2017 UT 41
| Utah | 2017Background
- R.S. 2477 (1866) granted rights-of-way over public lands; FLPMA (1976) repealed R.S. 2477 so no new R.S. 2477 rights could arise after 1976. Utah law requires ten years of continuous public use to accept an R.S. 2477 right.
- The Quiet Title Act (QTA, 28 U.S.C. §2409a) is the exclusive remedy to adjudicate disputed title against the United States; a QTA claim accrues only when the United States disputes title and the QTA contains a 12-year federal limitation.
- Utah Code §78B-2-201(1) (and its pre-2008 predecessor) bars the State from suing about real property based on state right or title unless that right or title "accrued within seven years before any action ... is commenced." The provision existed since 1872 and was amended in 2008 and again in 2015.
- Counties and the State sued the United States in multiple federal cases claiming thousands of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; federal courts certified the narrow question whether §78B-2-201 and its predecessor are statutes of repose or statutes of limitations.
- The practical problem: if §201 is a statute of repose measured from accrual of title, many R.S. 2477 rights would have expired before any legal mechanism (QTA) existed to protect them, since QTA did not exist until 1972.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §78B-2-201 (and predecessor) are statutes of repose or statutes of limitations | State: should be construed as statutes of limitations (esp. as applied to R.S. 2477 claims) to avoid absurd results | U.S. & SUWA: plain text makes them statutes of repose; applying them does not produce absurdity | Court: Plain text makes them statutes of repose generally, but under the absurdity doctrine the court construes them as statutes of limitations when applied to State R.S. 2477 claims |
| Whether Court should answer the certified question (risk of advisory opinion) | State: answer may be advisory because other statutes/constitutional provisions could control | U.S./SUWA: question is proper; federal courts deemed §201 potentially dispositive | Court: Will answer the certified question; federal courts retain authority to apply the ruling to the cases |
| Whether absurdity doctrine requires reforming §201 as applied to R.S. 2477 claims | State: literal repose reading would extinguish state title without any opportunity to defend it; absurd and unintended | U.S./SUWA: no absurdity—alternatives exist and federal government controlled dispute timing | Court: The interplay of §201, R.S. 2477, and the QTA produces an overwhelmingly absurd result; apply absurdity doctrine and treat §201 as a statute of limitations for R.S. 2477 claims |
| Scope of the ruling (does it affect non-R.S. 2477 state property) | State: broader relief sought | U.S./SUWA: caution against broad ruling | Court: Cabins the absurdity-based construction to R.S. 2477 claims; leaves non-R.S. 2477 applications for future cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (Sup. Ct.) (QTA is exclusive means to challenge U.S. title)
- Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose)
- Sun Valley Water Beds of Utah, Inc. v. Herm Hughes & Son, Inc., 782 P.2d 188 (Utah 1989) (discusses limitations/repose concepts)
- San Juan County v. United States, 754 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 2014) (characterizes R.S. 2477 rights and related litigation)
- Kane County v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014) (QTA jurisdiction requires U.S. claim/ dispute of title)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (federal/state repose/limitations can coexist)