JOHNSON v. MOAB CITY, 2026 UT App 100

Background

The dispute concerns a parcel in Moab that was shown as a public street on an 1886 townsite plat but was also included in a later federal patent to James Luster in 1890. 1
Johnson, whose family owned adjacent land, claimed his predecessors possessed most of the parcel for more than a century and filed to quiet title after Moab announced road expansion plans. 2
Moab counterclaimed, asserting title based on the plat and arguing the parcel had been dedicated to public use under the townsite statutes. 3
The district court held the patent controlled over the plat and awarded Johnson seven-eighths of the parcel based on adverse possession. 4
Moab’s summary judgment motion argued the townsite process vested title through the 1886 plat and that adverse possession could not run against a municipality for public streets. 5
The court of appeals reversed, concluding Moab obtained title through the plat before the 1890 patent and that Johnson could not obtain title by adverse possession against Moab. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the 1886 plat vest title in Moab before the 1890 patent? 7	Johnson: the plat was ineffective until recorded in 1891, after Luster’s patent.	Moab: title vested when the plat was approved/entered in 1886.	Yes; title vested in 1886 and beat the patent. 8
Could Johnson rely on adverse possession against Moab? 9	Johnson: his family’s long possession should quiet title in him.	Moab: adverse possession cannot be acquired against a government entity holding land for public use.	No; Johnson could not obtain adverse possession title against Moab. 10
Did Nelson v. Provo City require a deed for Moab to own the parcel? 11	Johnson: without a deed, Moab had no ownership interest.	Moab: Nelson only addressed absolute ownership, not trust title.	No; Nelson did not defeat Moab’s title. 12
Did Hall v. North Ogden City control because of private occupancy? 13	Johnson: his family occupied the parcel, so the dedication was void.	Moab: Hall applies only when occupancy predates townsite entry.	No; Johnson showed no occupancy before the 1886 entry. 14
Could the court affirm on the ground that the street was not necessary? 15	Johnson: the parcel was never necessary for a public street.	Moab: the argument was undeveloped and unsupported below.	No; the court declined to affirm on that ground. 16

Key Cases Cited

Kirkham v. McConkie, 427 P.3d 444 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (summary judgment reviewed for correctness 17)
Stoddard v. Chambers, 43 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1844) (a later patent is void if the land was previously patented 18)
Chotard v. Pope, 25 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1827) (“entry” under land laws means filing a claim at the proper office 19)
Lockwitz v. Larson, 52 P. 279 (Utah 1898) (townsite entry relates back to the filing date of the application 20)
Tooele Bldg. Ass'n v. Tooele High School Dist. No. 1, 134 P. 894 (Utah 1913) (public officers are presumed to perform official duties properly 21)
E.C. Olsen Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 168 P.2d 324 (Utah 1946) (administrative acts are presumed regular absent contrary proof 22)
Nelson v. Provo City, 872 P.2d 35 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (municipality needs a deed to own land for itself, but may still hold trust title 23)
Hall v. North Ogden City, 175 P.2d 703 (Utah 1946) (townsite dedication is void when it conflicts with preexisting occupancy 24)
Cox v. Carlisle, 359 P.2d 1049 (Utah 1961) (Hall is uncontrolled absent evidence of occupancy at townsite entry 25)
Judd v. Kanab City, 672 P.2d 87 (Utah 1983) (Hall is distinguished where occupancy began after townsite acts became effective 26)
Pentalon Constr., Inc. v. Rymark Props., LLC, 344 P.3d 180 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (appellate courts may affirm on alternate grounds apparent on the record 27)
White v. Salt Lake City, 239 P.2d 210 (Utah 1952) (recording a plat vests fee title to dedicated streets in public authorities 28)