Rep. Norm Thurston — Voting Record

Bill

Number

S.B. 224 First Substitute (2020GS)

Sponsor

Sen. Weiler, T.

Final action

Governor Signed 3/28/2020

Outcome

Became law — signed by Gov. Gary R. Herbert

Summary

What it does

• This bill:
• modifies the requirements for an interruption of continuous use of a highway as a public thoroughfare;
• provides that a property owner's interruption of continuous use of a highway as a public thoroughfare restarts the running of the 10-year period of continuous use required for the dedication of a public highway;
• provides that a property owner's interruption of a right-of-way created after dedication has no effect on the validity of the state's or local highway authority's claim to the right-of-way;
• removes certain limitations regarding the applicability of the dedication and interruption provisions; and
• removes language providing legislative intent.

Every vote on this bill

Bill text

DEDICATION OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS
GENERAL SESSION
STATE OF UTAH
Chief Sponsor: Todd Weiler
House Sponsor: 
Merrill F. Nelson
LONG TITLE
General Description:
This bill modifies the Transportation Code by amending provisions relating to the
dedication of public highways.
Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
▸ modifies the requirements for an interruption of continuous use of a highway as a
public thoroughfare;
▸ provides that a property owner's interruption of continuous use of a highway as a
public thoroughfare restarts the running of the 10-year period of continuous use
required for the dedication of a public highway;
▸ provides that a property owner's interruption of a right-of-way created after
dedication has no effect on the validity of the state's or local highway authority's
claim to the right-of-way;
▸ removes certain limitations regarding the applicability of the dedication and
interruption provisions; and
▸ removes language providing legislative intent.
Money Appropriated in this Bill:
None
Other Special Clauses:
None
Utah Code Sections Affected:
AMENDS:
72-5-104
, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2014, Chapter 107
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section 
72-5-104
 is amended to read:
72-5-104.
Public use constituting dedication -- Scope.
(1) As used in this section,"highway," "street," or "road" does not include an area
principally used as a parking lot.
(2) [
(a)
] A highway is dedicated and abandoned to the use of the public when it has
been continuously used as a public thoroughfare for a period of 10 years.
[
(b) Dedication to the use of the public under Subsection (2) does not require an act of
dedication or implied dedication by the property owner.
]
(3) The requirement of continuous use under Subsection (2) is satisfied if the use is as
frequent as the public finds convenient or necessary and may be seasonal or follow some other
pattern.
(4) Continuous use as a public thoroughfare under Subsection (2) is interrupted [
only
]
when:
[
(a) the regularly established pattern and frequency of public use for the given road has
actually been interrupted for a period of no less than 24 hours to a degree that reasonably puts
the traveling public on notice; or
]
[
(b) for interruptions by use of a barricade on or after May 10, 2011:
]
[
(i)
] 
(a)
 [
if
] the person or entity interrupting the continuous use gives not less than 72
hours advance written notice of the interruption to the highway authority having jurisdiction of
the highway, street, or road; [
and
]
[
(ii) the barricade is in place for at least 24 consecutive hours, then an interruption will
be deemed to have occurred.
]
(b) the property owner undertakes an overt act which is intended to interrupt the use of
the highway, street, or road as a public thoroughfare; and
(c) the overt act described in Subsection (4)(b) is reasonably calculated to interrupt the
regularly established pattern and frequency of public use for the given highway, street, or road
for a period of no less than 24 hours.
(5) Installation of gates and posting of no trespassing signs are relevant forms of
evidence but are not solely determinative of whether an interruption 
under Subsection (4)
 has
occurred.
[
(6) If the highway authority having jurisdiction of the highway, street, or road
demands that an interruption cease or that a barrier or barricade blocking public access be
removed and the property owner accedes to the demand, the attempted interruption does not
constitute an interruption under Subsection (4).
]
(6) A property owner's interruption under Subsection (4) of a highway, street, or road
where the requirement of continuous use under Subsection (2) is not satisfied restarts the
running of the 10-year period of continuous use required for dedication under Subsection (2).
(7) (a) The burden of proving dedication under Subsection (2) is on the party asserting
the dedication.
(b) The burden of proving interruption under Subsection (4) is on the party asserting
the interruption.
(8) 
(a)
 The dedication and abandonment creates a right-of-way held by the state 
or a
local highway authority
 in accordance with Sections 
72-3-102
, 
72-3-103
,
72-3-104
, 
72-3-105
,
and 
72-5-103
.
(b) A property owner's interruption under Subsection (4) of a right-of-way claimed by
the state or local highway authority in accordance with Subsection (8)(a) or R.S. 2477 has no
effect on the validity of the state's or local highway authority's claim to the right-of-way and
does not return the right-of-way to the property owner.
(9) The scope of [
the
] 
a
 right-of-way 
described in Subsection (8)(a)
 is that which is
reasonable and necessary to ensure safe travel according to the facts and circumstances.
(10) [
(a)
] The provisions of this section apply to any claim under this section for which
a court of competent jurisdiction has not issued a final unappealable judgment or order.
[
(b) The Legislature finds that the application of this section:
]
[
(i) does not enlarge, eliminate, or destroy vested rights; and
]
[
(ii) clarifies legislative intent in light of Utah Supreme Court rulings in Wasatch
County v. Okelberry, 179 P.3d 768 (Utah 2008), Town of Leeds v. Prisbrey, 179 P.3d 757
(Utah 2008), and Utah County v. Butler, 179 P.3d 775 (Utah 2008).
]