Rowley v. Ada County Highway District
156 Idaho 275
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Rowley sued to enjoin her neighbor from placing a shed on a 10-foot-wide strip labeled "Walk Way" in the Cherry Lane subdivision; she sought declarations that the strip was a public right-of-way and that Ada County Highway District (ACHD) or the City owned it.
- The subdivision was platted in two stages by Darold and Minerva Smith: a 1950 Plat (north half) that dedicated "all streets, not heretofore dedicated" and showed dashed lines labeled "easement for public utilities," and a 1954 Plat (south half) that labeled the disputed strip "Walk Way" and contained the dedication "all streets and rights of way easements not heretofore dedicated as shown on this plat."
- The 1954 Plat used solid lines for streets and the walkway borders; streets show center lines but the walkway does not. The 1954 legend shows a dashed symbol for public utility easements; the walkway is not marked with that dashed symbol.
- The Smiths recorded CC&Rs in both years; the CC&Rs reserve easements for utilities, irrigation, and drainage but do not reference the walkway.
- At summary judgment the district court found the Smiths made a clear common-law dedication of the walkway to the public and that ACHD held title; the Idaho Supreme Court vacated and remanded with directions to enter judgment for ACHD, holding no common-law or statutory dedication existed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rowley) | Defendant's Argument (ACHD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Smiths made a common-law dedication of the walkway to the public | The 1954 Plat’s dedication language plus labeling of the strip as "Walk Way" and its alignment as a corridor/continuation of the street show clear, unequivocal intent to dedicate | The plats and surrounding instruments do not clearly and unequivocally show intent to dedicate the strip as a public right-of-way | No. Court held as a matter of law there was no common-law dedication because the plat did not demark the strip as a public street, easement, or right-of-way and intent cannot be presumed |
| Whether statutory dedication (under 1950/1954 statutes) occurred | The 1954 dedication language covering "streets and rights of way easements" covers the walkway | The statutory scheme requires unequivocal demarcation of public rights-of-way on the plat; the walkway was not so demarked | No. Court held there was no statutory dedication because the plat failed to unequivocally dedicate the walkway to public use |
| Whether surrounding circumstances (e.g., CC&Rs, plat legend, map markings) establish dedication | The walkway’s map position and legend references to public utility easements support dedication | Surrounding documents (CC&Rs, legend, map features) do not affirmatively show public dedication; dashed-line easements differ from the walkway’s marking | No. Court found surrounding circumstances did not show clear, unequivocal intent to dedicate |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117 | Rowley sought fees as prevailing party | ACHD did not seek fees; court considered prevailing-party rule and whether losing party acted without reasonable basis | No. Rowley was not prevailing party on appeal; no fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Armand v. Opportunity Mgmt. Co., 141 Idaho 709, 117 P.3d 123 (explaining dedication principles)
- Ponderosa Home Site Lot Owners v. Garfield Bay Resort, Inc., 139 Idaho 699, 85 P.3d 675 (two-part common-law dedication test; intent requirement)
- Lattin v. Adams County, 149 Idaho 497, 236 P.3d 1257 (statutory dedication requires demarking public rights-of-way on plat)
- Kepler-Fleenor v. Fremont County, 152 Idaho 207, 268 P.3d 1159 (interpret plat like a deed; ambiguity is a question of law)
- Saddlehorn Ranch Landowner’s, Inc. v. Dyer, 146 Idaho 747, 203 P.3d 677 (consider surrounding circumstances in dedication analysis)
- Smylie v. Pearsall, 93 Idaho 188, 457 P.2d 427 (older precedent on dedication via recorded plat, narrowed by later cases)
- Worley Highway Dist. v. Yacht Club of Coeur d’Alene, Ltd., 116 Idaho 219, 775 P.2d 111 (acceptance element for common-law dedication)
- Ross v. Dorsey, 154 Idaho 836, 303 P.3d 195 (consider surrounding circumstances when assessing dedication)