Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona
233 Ariz. 262
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- ABOR owns the Maricopa Agricultural Center (MAC) and Schugg owns the nearby Section 16; gate on Smith-Enke Road blocked access in 2008.
- Schugg sought a judicial determination of an easement by implication, along with quiet title relief and a declaration regarding access; ABOR answered and counterclaimed for quiet title and to declare Schugg had no interest in MAC.
- ABOR moved to dismiss under A.R.S. § 12-821; trial court dismissed Schugg’s complaint with prejudice as time-barred; summary judgment followed in ABOR’s favor on counterclaims.
- Schugg alleged an implied easement; the core issue was when a quiet title action for an easement by implication accrues under § 12-821.
- The court analyzed accrual for (1) quiet title and (2) declaratory judgment claims, and held claims were time-barred; trespass was moot due to lack of a legal interest. The court affirmed judgment for ABOR and awarded fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the quiet title claim accrue under § 12-821? | Schugg contends accrual depends on his underlying claim, not earlier. | ABOR argues accrual occurs when damages/injury and knowable cause arise; the quiet title claim accrues with underlying claim. | Accrual tied to underlying declaratory claim; timely if within one year after accrual date. |
| When does the declaratory judgment claim accrue under § 12-821? | Schugg asserts accrual occurs when justiciable controversy exists, potentially after gate action. | ABOR maintains accrual requires an affirmative conduct causing actual injury/breach; mere anticipation is insufficient. | Accrual occurs when an actual controversy and injury exist; Schugg’s was triggered by ABOR’s gate and September 17, 2008 letter. |
| Is Schugg’s trespass claim viable given lack of a recognized property interest? | Continuous trespass theory may apply as new trespasses occurred when gate closed. | Schugg has no legal interest in MAC, so trespass claim is not viable. | Trespass claim moot due to absence of a recognized property interest in the disputed road. |
| Does the Public Entity Claims Act immunize ABOR or affect the statute of limitations analysis? | Schugg argues § 12-821 reinstates immunity in a way that would be absurd. | Statute simply limits time to bring claims; immunity is governed by statute, not reopened by this suit. | Statute of limitations applies; does not reinstate immunity; claims barred by § 12-821. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 232 Ariz. 173 (Ariz. App. 2013) (quiet title not barred when in possession; cloud removal continues)
- Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 258 P.3d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) ( § 12-821 accrual for declaratory relief requires actual controversy)
- Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (definition of accrual under § 12-821.01)
- Landry v. Superior Court, 609 P.2d 607 (Ariz. 1980) (legislature may regulate time to sue the state)
- Brooks v. S. Pac. Co., 466 P.2d 736 (Ariz. 1970) (statutes of limitations policy to protect defendants)
- City of Tucson v. Morgan, 475 P.2d 285 (Ariz. App. 1970) (cloud on title and quiet title to remove cloud not barred while cloud exists)