Kane County v. United States
934 F. Supp. 2d 1344
D. Utah2013Background
- Kane County, Utah seeks to quiet title to 15 roads crossing federal lands under RS2477 rights-of-way.
- The United States challenges jurisdiction on nine roads, with SUWA objecting on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- Plaintiff filed April 25, 2008; amended November 10, 2008 to add several roads and February 20, 2009 to add facts.
- The State of Utah intervened April 29, 2010, asserting joint RS2477 ownership with Kane County.
- BLM wilderness inventory and management plans (Monument and Kanab Field Office Plan) affect road status and create potential clouds on title.
- Historical litigation (BLM trespass suit; 1996–2001) and subsequent administrative determinations informed rights but did not conclusively resolve title in court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QT Act jurisdiction exists when US claims an adverse interest. | US claims an interest in each road, meeting QT Act prong one. | US disputes or disclaims adverse interest on several roads, defeating jurisdiction. | Yes; the court holds QT Act jurisdiction exists for all questioned roads. |
| Whether there is a concrete case or controversy for the nine disputed roads. | Kane County seeks relief against clouds on title and management actions. | Without adverse title dispute, no case or controversy. | Yes; there is a case or controversy for each of the nine roads. |
| Whether the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations bars Kane County's claims. | Limitations did not run given ongoing adverse interests and relation-back principles. | SOL is jurisdictional and may bar claims. | No; limitations did not run or extinguish the court's jurisdiction. |
| Whether adverse claims exist for specific roads (Skutumpah, Hancock, Sand Dunes, Cave Lake roads, Mill Creek branches). | US has asserted adverse claims or created clouds on title via plans/maps/permits. | US actions did not consistently dispute title for all roads. | Yes; adverse claims exist for these roads, creating title disputes. |
| Whether MOUs and maps (Monument/Kanab Field Plan) altered the status of the roads. | Plans show open or limited use but do not abolish RS2477 rights. | Plans/nascent maps could create binding status and close roads. | Ambiguity remains; plans do not conclusively resolve title, thus dispute persists. |
Key Cases Cited
- George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 2012) (adverse claim requirement under QT Act; government claims interest must be adverse to invoke jurisdiction)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (QT Act limitations are jurisdictional; power to adjudicate must be shown at all stages)
- Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2000) (government claims adverse interest; silence does not defeat jurisdiction; notice and clouds on title)
- Park County Mont. v. United States, 626 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1980) (notice via Federal Register or actions can trigger limitations analysis in title cases)
- George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 2012) (reiteration of adverse claim trigger for QT Act)