Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. United Park City Mines Co.
2017 UT 42
| Utah | 2017Background
- Mayflower (successor to 1871 mining-claim holders) asserts rights to use a Flagstaff Mountain road built circa 1871 that crosses defendants’ land.
- Mayflower sued (initial complaint 2005), asserting common-law prescriptive easement and later R.S. 2477 / 1880 Utah Highway Act public-road claims; sought leave to add an appurtenant-easement claim.
- Relevant timeline: road allegedly used beginning ~1871; Utah’s 1880 Highway Act created a 5-year statutory highway presumption for roads used as highways for five years; common-law prescriptive period before 1880 was 20 years.
- A portion of the land became private on October 13, 1881 (Home Station claim), so any public-road period had to be completed before that date.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants on the prescriptive-easement claim, and later granted summary judgment on the R.S. 2477 / public-road claim; it also denied leave to file a second amended complaint adding an appurtenant-easement claim.
- Utah Supreme Court affirms: public-road claim fails as matter of law (statutory or common-law time period not satisfied before 10/13/1881); prescriptive-easement dismissal affirmed on preservation grounds; denial of leave to amend affirmed for abuse-of-discretion standard reasons (delay, prior court order requiring disclosures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether road is a public highway under R.S. 2477 / 1880 Utah Highway Act | Mayflower: road was in public use from ~1871 through 1881 (and until 2006), meeting the requisite period (argues 5-year statutory period applies) | Defendants: Mayflower cannot show requisite period of public use before 10/13/1881; 20-year common-law period (pre-1880) applies or 5-year statutory period cannot be applied retroactively | Court: Affirmed for defendants — Mayflower failed to show public use for required period before 10/13/1881; 1880 statute construed prospectively so five-year clock did not satisfy requirement before 1881 |
| Whether Mayflower holds a common-law prescriptive easement | Mayflower: asserted adverse, continuous use sufficient to establish prescriptive easement | Defendants: evidence shows Mayflower had permission or otherwise failed to prove adverse use; appellees argue appellate evidence/arguments were not presented below | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Mayflower failed to preserve the factual and legal challenges below; appellate arguments/evidence not presented to district court, so summary-judgment reversal improper |
| Whether leave to file second amended complaint (adding appurtenant easement) should be granted under Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a) | Mayflower: amendment would only clarify existing claims, overlap elements with current claims, and would not prejudice defendants or require new discovery | Defendants: amendment was untimely after long delay and would prejudice timely resolution; Mayflower failed required earlier disclosures under a March 2012 court order | Court: Affirmed denial — district court acted within discretion (undue delay, prejudice, failure to comply with earlier disclosure order) |
| Whether March 2012 disclosure order barred new claims | Mayflower: contends appurtenant claim was effectively pleaded earlier and March 2012 order exceeded procedural bounds | Defendants: Mayflower failed to identify the claim by the deadline required by the order so barred | Court: Affirmed — Mayflower did not adequately disclose the appurtenant claim by the court-ordered deadline; court’s docket-management order was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bahr v. Imus, 250 P.3d 56 (Utah 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Heber City Corp. v. Simpson, 942 P.2d 307 (Utah 1997) (prescriptive-easement/adverse-use principles)
- S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005) (R.S. 2477 treated as self-executing; state law governs required period of public use)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (presumption against retroactive application of statutes)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors bearing on leave to amend pleadings)