Ponderosa Home Site Lot Owners v. Garfield Bay Resort, Inc.
85 P.3d 675
Idaho
2004
Check Treatment

*1 85 P.3d 675

PONDEROSA HOME SITE LOT

OWNERS, Plaintiff,

and

Harry Peterson, Margaret Peterson and wife, Plaintiffs-

husband and Counterdefendants,

and Stalsberg,

Ralph Stalsberg and Ruth hus wife; and band and and Clifford Dove Dove,

Steve Plaintiffs-Counterdefen

dants-Appellants,

v. RESORT, INC.; BAY

GARFIELD Verl

E. Thayer Thayer, and Rita Walker S. wife, husband and Defendants-Counter

claimants-Respondents, through 10, being

John Doe officers Bay Resort,

and directors of Garfield

Inc., Defendants-Respondents. Randolph, Plaintiff,

Carol Thayer, Thayer,

Rita S. E. Walker Verl Bay Resort, Inc., Garfield Defendants- Party

Counterclaimants-Third Plain

tiffs-Respondents, I, II,

Jane Doe Dove Jane Doe Dove Har ry Peterson, Margaret Peterson, The Es Harry Peterson, Defendants,

tate of Dove, Dove, Ralph Stalsberg,

Steve Cliff Stalsberg,

Ruth Defendants-

Appellants. Thayer, Thayer

Rita S. Walker Verl E. Bay Resort, Inc.,

Garfield Counterclaim Party Plaintiffs-Respon

ants-Third

dents, (MC Williams) Randolph, Virginia

Carol (MC Williams) Frisbie, Mary Orveline (MC Williams) Frisbie, and Lola New lin, Party De Counterdefendants-Third

fendants.

No. 27807. Idaho,

Supreme Court of Alene,

Coeur d’ October 2003 Term.

Feb. 2004. *2 property located lots 3

lakeshore between “L” and 4 within PHS. The “lake access” is piece shaped with a small of land between connecting the road lots 3 and 4 with larger portion abutting to Garfield and the Bay Lake Pend Oreille south of lot 4. The on legal description of the exterior boundaries plat includes the area marked as “lake on access.” The “lake access” was identified designation and without block or lot The without mention the dedication. “[t]hey following dedication: do included the hereby dedicate to the for the use of any plat.” nor contem- Neither deeds, poraneous papers declarations or indi- cate who is to be the owner of the “lake access.” al., Stalsberg et filed suit 26, 1995, citing multiple causes of June joint parties Motions for

action. The filed Summary Judgment. Summary Judg- The granted in denied in ments were court held a trial on Octo- part. The district 25, 26, 27, 1999, and addressed ber single issue of of the “lake access” Hull, Sandpoint, appellants. for Tevis W. in the PHS. If the court determined that one Paulsen, respon- Sandpoint, H. James parties owned the “lake access” then dents. required to later trial would be determine damages. party the issue of Neither called KIDWELL, Justice. privity any witness who was in direct with dispute matter arose out of a between This No evidence was intro- McWilliams. Defendant, relating the Plaintiff and the or if duced to demonstrate how the McWil- control, ownership, and use of the “lake any representations liams had made concern- in the Ponderosa Home access” area found ing ownership of the “lake access.” The (PHS) in Bonner Sites Subdivision located court held that neither Ponderosa district trial, County. al., al., court deter- At es- Stalsberg et nor Garfield et mined the owned the “lake access” ownership of the “lake ac- tablished their al., Appel- Rather, et the PHS. Plaintiff the “lake access” was cess.” lant, court’s deci- seeks review of the district subject of a common law dedication to the by this Stalsberg appeals sion Court. the decision

trial court.

I. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OF REVIEW STANDARD 22,1960, September Anna and Kenneth On by a district court titled Conclusions of law platted an area of land J. McWilliams County. subject to de novo review this Court. in Bonner are Ponderosa Home Sites Dist., January Doolittle v. Meridian Joint Sch. 1961. The was recorded (1996); 919 P.2d see as “lake Idaho plat shows an area marked The Dev., Eagle Quality Design piece of Iron L.L.C. is a small The “lake access” access.” 509, deeds, who is Inc., 487, 491, papers indicate declarations Sys., ” (2003). of the ‘Lake Access.’ to be the owner III. depicted The area is *3 to intent no other clues as “lake access” with ANALYSIS jurisdiction ob ownership. As another or Holding Erred In As A The Trial Court served, leaving upon a mere of blank “[t]he That The Matter Of Law Public any pur designation of its the without The “Lake Access.” Owned proof an sufficient of pose cannot be held prem the ‘lake intention of the owner to dedicate The district court held “[t]he subject undesig represented by access’ was the of a common law such blank or ises public.” City dedication to the space public “[dedication use.” Poole v. nated to of essentially setting property of real Forest, 305, 320, the aside Ill. 87 N.E. 322 Lake 238 for the use or of others. Idaho (1909). However, subject in this the area recognizes common law dedication of blank; rather, it was denot case was not left public, private as well as for use.” both access,” providing additional evi ed as “lake Minerals, Valley And Inc. v. Sun Land to the dence of the lack of intent to dedicate Hawkes, 543, 548, 798, 138 Idaho 66 P.3d 803 public. Upon examination of the (2003). accomplished Public dedications are court findings court’s the district statutorily by either the common law. public to conclude that a common law seems Worley Highway Dist. v. Yacht Club Co of insufficient dedication occurred because Alene, 219, 222, eur d’ 116 Idaho 775 P.2d therefore, ownership; the private evidence of (1989). 111, 114 Common law dedications to probable concluded is more than “[i]t court public satisfy two-part the must a test. See intended the ‘Lake not that the McWilliams Minerals, Inc., Valley Sun Land And 66 Access’ to a common law dedication to the be at 803. “The elements of common law words, public.” court In other the district (1) by dedication are an offer suggests public that a common law decision clearly unequivocally indicating an intent dedication was the default conclusion. acceptance to dedicate the an land and Id; Victor, the offer.” Pullin v. 103 Idaho parallels The case at bar the facts of Def 879, 881, (Ct.App.1982). 655 P.2d 88 Co., fenbaugh Washington Power 24 Water (1913). P. 247 Idaho Deffen- may “The offer to dedicate made be baugh, of the issues this decided one Court ways, in a including number of the act of was whether lands dedicated to beach were recording filing plat depict a subdivision public. P. at the Id. at 248. The dedication, ing specific subject areas to Respondent Dejfenbaugh platted prop her long unequivocal so as there is a clear and erty to the the streets and dedicated indication the owner intends to dedicate.” and avenues that were shown on the Minerals, Inc., Valley See Sun Land And However, Id. the land between the lots and determining P.3d at 803. intent to “beach,” designated the water line were as dedicate, plat, “the court must examine the and at another location as “sand beach.” Id. surrounding as well as ‘the circumstances This Court held dedication did not “[t]he development and conditions of the sale of ” beach, water front or include the (citing Hackney lots.’ Id. Dunham v. Air way any does not in indicate that it is dedi Inc., 613, 616, park, public, or that it as cated to the was intended (Ct.App.1999)). It is clear that a dedication in the sense in which same McWilliams, original plat owners of streets, alleys, and avenues are dedicated.” property, to the ted intended to “dedicate no Id. The Court went on to state there was public, for the use of the prop of intent the owner of the evidence upon plat.” erty public, the land to the to dedicate but explicit no “lake there is dedication for the instead, per found, grant “to owner intended “[n]ei access.” As the district court any purchas- contemporaneous petual ther nor easement in this beach to the purchasers use of the of the special pro- dedicated to the of lots...as a inducement ers claiming as well as lots and those under them spective purchasers.” Id. words, public.” Id. at 802. In other Deffenbaugh because parallels This case dedicating open land to the lot the use by the included created to the owners includes dedication public, “to the for the -use dedication Giving ownership of the “lake access and highways the roads shown is not the access” to Ponderosa Furthermore, plat.” disputed area public. If giving rights those to the same as access,” is similar was listed as “lake which the “lake access” was dedicated “sand beach” in listing of “beach” and Stalsberg would also have Deffenbaugh. court conclud- As the district access, this fact defeats Ponderosa’s and but ed, suggests ownership of no other evidence Presumably, Stalsberg’s purpose. Pondero- *4 The access” is the “beaeh access.” “beach Stalsberg purchased lots with the sa and therefore, highway; not a road or the PHS understanding they the “lake that could use public inapplica- plat dedication to the seems access.” If the district court finds ble. give intended to analysis, the court cites to Without district as an incentive to the “lake access” Pearsall, 188, Smylie v. 93 Idaho lots, purchase then Ponderosa and PHS (1969), open space that an on which held Stalsberg, public, should be the and not the However, public. plat a dedicated to the was remand, way, upon owner. Stated another Smylie dissimilarities to the case has factual decide that Ponderosa the district court can Smylie, platted In is a road at bar. there “lake ac- Stalsberg privately own the and driveway; a north- “[t]he which connects to cess.” ‘driveway’ is not closed off but west corner Additionally, in said that the Court Cassell and small opens rather toward the lake on a does not leaving space a blank dispute. It apron of which is here in necessarily public that á dedication has mean parcel appears that was intended occurred; nevertheless, special conditions driveway providing natu- continuation of the dicta, In otherwise. Id. at 803. could show lake...[therefore,] the over- ral access to the continued, special condition “[s]uch the Court of the shows an intention on the all tenor strip leaving space or be- an unmarked disputed part of the Palmers to dedicate a on the and tween a street shown area.” Id. at 457 P.2d at 431. “lake access” of navigable river.” Id. The a continu- the “lake access” of this case is not public street and this case is between by the ation of the road which was dedicated Bay waterway, being navigable Garfield court, public. The McWilliams to the but, Lake; access” is the “lake Pend Oreille findings in found the “lake access” its Therefore, the space plat. a marked distinguished from was “connected to and not ease apply not to this dicta of Cassell does public as a road.” Howev- the area marked is marked on the “lake access” because otherwise; er, map shows the “lake PHS L-shaped piece of land access” is an which evidence of owner- Because of the lack of road at the perpendicularly intersects the court, and the by the district ship, as found words, point. property’s narrowest other public, this to dedicate to the lack of intent public in intersects the road the “lake access” follows the district court and Court vacates other lots of the the same manner as all the Deffenbaugh previous Court’s decision is not a Because the “lake access” PHS. was holding the “lake access” insofar as that road, continuation of the dedicated remands the public, not dedicated Smylie holding does not control. to determine owner- case to the district court distinguish failed to be Some courts have “lake access.” ship of the homeowner association tween Court, ownership. Smylie, relied This IV. Reeves, (Ky. 265 S.W.2d Cassell CONCLUSION 1954). Cassell, all the it “held that was com- two-part test for streets, open spaces This Court holds the alleys, parks or other not has mon law dedications- to plan have on such been delineated satisfied, 2 and 3 so that there can be been and the case is remanded to short lots large court. The first element of the area. I believe that this the district lake access test, by requires which an offer access” as noted shows an intent that “lake clearly unequivocally indicating an intent final of the Ponderosa Homesites land, to dedicate the is not satisfied. There “roads” means that it is dedicated ownership, is a lack of evidence of as found public. comb, a lack the district of intent to distinguish the case majority The tries to Therefore, dedicate to the we vacate Pearsall, Smylie previous the district comb and follow our I from the facts of this case and Deffenbaugh holding decision in insofar as respectfully disagree. I have enclosed that the access” not to “beach was dedicated B No. 1 Exhibit to this dissent Exhibit and we remand the case Smylie from the case found at 93 Idaho at district court to determine As in that 457 P.2d at 428. can be seen “beach access.” open roadway case the above lots 12 and 11 “driveway.” is entitled That denotes an even Chief Justice TROUT and Justices personal ac- private more use than “lake EISMANN, SCHROEDER and concur. cess” in the case before the Court at this BURDICK, dissenting. Justice *5 Supreme time. the Idaho State respectfully majority I dissent from the found in a unanimous decision that it Court opinion Judge origi- and would affirm Judd’s was clear’ that the intent of the landowner finding nal after a court trial in this case. “driveway” public was to access. make The reason for the dissent can found in be Again, Smylie depends upon Cassell plat signed by dedication Mr. And Mrs. Reeves, (Ky.1954). 265 S.W.2d 801 says applicable McWilliams wherein it in Supreme quotes The Idaho Court Cassell part: at 93 Idaho at 457 P.2d at 430 as follows: ALL BY KNOW MEN THESE PRES- And, nothing appearing, else it held that is ENTS, we, that K.J. and Anna streets, alleys, open parks all the or other McWilliams, wife, M. his have caused to be spaces plat delineated on such have lots, block, platted laid off and into purchas- to the use of the been dedicated upon plat roads the land shown this to [sic] claiming ers of the lots and those under known as “PONDEROSA HOME SITES.” them as well as of the specific This shows a intent to divide the Smylie the Comb in found the entire land known as Ponderosa Homesites purpose “driveway” for the was land access lots, legal into three basic definitions of to lots 8-12. 93 Idaho at at 431 P.2d blocks, and roads. The McWilliams addition- (See B.) Smylie Exhibit The Court in distin ally “dedicate to the for use of guishes Deffenbaugh Washington Water Co., 514, 135 Power P. 247 plat. The lakeshore lots include shore- this Court should do also. riparian rights.” land and I have included as case, plat Deffenbaugh plat Exhibit to this dissent the final In the showed plat plain Ponderosa Homesites. In that it is as well as an certain streets and avenues top designated “sandy to see that a service road is at the area as “beach” or totally along Bay, It is noted that all other lots are La an arm of beach” Deleardo except inscribed lot lines for a “lake ac- Lake d’Alene. Coeur There only plat cess.” Lot is an enclosed lot that does not filed for record not but a go way all to the shoreline as lots written dedication of the streets and ave- do; however, plat and 3 it abuts the lake inlet in nues which the indicated. This dedi- portion. spe- its southeastern This shows cation did not include the beach area. Thus, cific apparently theory expres- intent that the lake access is a alterius, the service it road because shows no inter- sion unius exclusion the court est secting beginning lines at the of the “lake found no intention to dedicate the beach and, addition, in stopped portion access” Lot 4 is area. A dedication of written some “sandy beach” while at water line as “beach” not an element the case original owner’s intention can be bar. The noth- attached to the said the dedication only plat itself. In one inferred from the “Thus, apparently on ing about this area. Deffenbaugh respect, reasoning in the est exclusion theory expression unius here, may reach support ease the result we found no intention to dedi- alterius the court that court there went on to declare 93 Idaho at cate the beach area.” grant “to it was the owner’s intention at 432. in this perpetual easement beach (in development).” purchasers of lots that distinguish should This Court Deffen- baugh, rely Smylie, and hold there was an 193, 457 P.2d at 432. 93 Idaho at plat to make the “lake intent from the shown Deffenbaugh Supreme Court the Idaho public and thus affirm open access” language looking at a difference was finding original the trial court who made dedication. The and on the attached intent. of fact as to the McWilliams’ the lot line and had the between *6 EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT B