483 P.3d 1102
Mont.2021Background
- Dispute over ~12-mile “Disputed Road” north of Roy, MT (connects Mabee Road to Knox Ridge Road); the route is a primitive two‑track, crosses private parcels and state/federal land, and is intercepted by multiple private gates.
- PLWA sued Fergus County, State, and local ranch families seeking a declaration that the Disputed Road is public by (a) county statutory petition/dedication, (b) R.S. 2477 (federal/public acceptance), or (c) public prescriptive easement; it also sought injunctive relief.
- County records show Mabee Road was established by petitions that end between Sections 14 and 15; no county petition or commissioner action established the Disputed Road as a county road.
- Historical maps/surveys (e.g., the 1913 Bolles Survey, county road books, gas tax maps) sometimes depict a route in the area, but the District Court found they did not prove county action or public use sufficient to create a public road.
- Trial (five days, 27 witnesses, exhibits, site visit): the District Court found the Disputed Road unmaintained, largely used seasonally by hunters (often with permission), and not shown by the record as a statutorily created road or by clear and convincing evidence to be prescriptive.
- Supreme Court affirmed: it held the Reid “record taken as a whole” standard was applied properly and substantial credible evidence supports the conclusion that the Disputed Road is private.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Disputed Road is a statutorily created county/public road ("record taken as a whole" standard) | PLWA: maps, historic surveys (Bolles), the 1903 postal route, gas tax maps, and other records, taken together, show the County created/assumed jurisdiction over the road under Reid/Letica standards. | Landowners/County: no petition, no commissioners’ action, no maintenance or other county acts; maps alone don’t show statutory creation. | Held: Court affirmed that record as a whole does not show statutory dedication; substantial evidence supports that the Disputed Road was not made a county road. |
| Whether R.S. 2477 / federal offer was accepted (public way by federal acceptance) | PLWA: county/early federal uses and surveys (postal route, county mapping) demonstrate acceptance of a federal offer creating a public way. | Landowners: no state statutory acceptance or county action; maps and surveys insufficient to show acceptance. | Held: Court found PLWA did not prove an R.S. 2477/public‑way theory; maps/surveys did not establish acceptance. |
| Whether a public prescriptive easement exists (open, notorious, adverse, continuous for statutory period) | PLWA: historical public use (hunters, recreation, some maintenance) shows adverse, continuous use sufficient to establish prescription. | Landowners: use was predominantly seasonal and permissive, many users requested permission; gates/signs and landowner actions rebut adverse/continuous use. | Held: Court held PLWA failed to prove prescription by clear and convincing evidence—use was largely permissive/seasonal and not continuously adverse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Park County, 627 P.2d 1210 (Mont. 1981) (adopted the “record taken as a whole” approach for historic roads).
- Letica Land Co., LLC v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, 362 P.3d 614 (Mont. 2015) (framework for appellate review under the Reid standard).
- Heller v. Gremaux, 53 P.3d 1259 (Mont. 2002) (enumerates ways private road may become public and elements for prescriptive easement).
- Public Lands Access Ass’n v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Madison Cty., 321 P.3d 38 (Mont. 2014) (seasonal recreational use generally insufficient for public prescription).
- Leisz v. Avista Corp., 174 P.3d 481 (Mont. 2007) (discusses prescriptive easement elements and proof standard).