Floyd v. BOARD OF COM'RS BONNEVILLE COUNTY
Decision Date | 06 August 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 26774, 26808.,26774, 26808. |
Citation | 52 P.3d 863,137 Idaho 718 |
Parties | John FLOYD, Leon Dance, Mindy Jo Collier f/b/o Mindy Jo Collier Trust, Petitioners-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Idaho, governing body of a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Respondent-Appellant and Cross Respondent, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Intervenor-Appellant and Cross Respondent. John Floyd, Leon Dance, Mindy Jo Collier f/b/o Mindy Jo Collier Trust, Petitioners-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Board of Commissioners of Bonneville County, Idaho, governing body of a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, and State of Idaho, Department of Fish and Game, Intervenor-Appellant. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
McGrath, Mecham, Decker & Smith, PLLC., Idaho Falls, for appellants Bonneville County Commissioners. Stephen J. McGrath argued.
Millemann, Pittenger, McMahan & Pemberton, LLP, McCall, for respondents, Floyd, et al. Steven J. Millemann argued.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Clive Strong, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for Intervenor Idaho Department of Fish & Game. John R. Kormanik argued.
The question before the Court is the legal status of Antelope Creek Road (ACR), located in the Antelope Valley area east of Idaho Falls. In this appeal following remand, Bonneville County (County) and the intervenor, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (IDFG) seek review of the decision of the district court, which reversed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners and declared the ACR a private road. This Court vacates the decision of the district court and affirms the Bonneville County Commissioners' determination that ACR is a public road.
The Court's opinion in Floyd v. Board of Comm'rs of Bonneville County, 131 Idaho 234, 235-36, 953 P.2d 984, 985-86 (1998), sets forth the facts as they appeared at the time of the district court's original review of the Board's validation proceedings:
The Landowners filed a petition for rehearing or reconsideration with the Board of County Commissioners in August of 1991. The Board denied a rehearing, but agreed to reconsider its decision based upon new evidence submitted by the Landowners with the petition. Incorporating its previous findings of fact and affirming its earlier conclusion that the ACR was a public road, the Board issued an order dated October 21, 1991. From this decision, the Landowners appealed to the district court.
On June 15, 1995, the district court ruled that the trial would be held de novo because of bias on the part of the Commissioners. The district court decided not to apply the newly enacted Section 40-208 of the Idaho Code governing the standard of review of a decision by a board of county commissioners. After a bench trial in early 1996, the district court held that the ACR never became a public road because of lack of proof of intent on the part of the State and the County and, in the alternative, that the road was subsequently abandoned in 1977. The County and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as intervenors appealed to this Court.
On March 30, 1998, this Court held that the district court erred in holding a de novo hearing, as the statute limiting a district court's review of a validation hearing was procedural in nature and thus could be applied retroactively. Id. The Court vacated the decision of the district court and remanded the case for review pursuant to I.C. § 40-208. Id. Pursuant to an order of the district court granting the parties' joint motion to be allowed to present additional evidence, the district court remanded the matter to the Board for a hearing. On July 30, 1999, the Board issued revised findings of fact, conclusions of law and a new order validating the ACR as a public road.
On October 7, 1999, the Landowners filed a petition for judicial review of the Board's decision. The IDFG, an intervenor, also petitioned for review of the decision, challenging the requirement, as found by the Board, that the owner of prescriptive public rights must prove the County's intent to create prescriptive rights in a road as an element of I.C. § 40-202(3).
On March 1, 2000, the County filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the appeal from the Board's 1991 decision was untimely because there existed no statutory authority providing for reconsideration by the Board and thus no basis to extend the time for filing an appeal from the original decision. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and held that: (1) I.C. § 31-828 was broad enough to confer on the Board authority to reconsider its decisions; (2) the Board is presumed to have acted in conformity with the law; and (3) Rule 14, I.A.R., extends the time for filing an appeal by virtue of a motion for reconsideration.
On July 4, 2000, the district court issued its memorandum opinion reversing the Board's order finding the ACR to be a public road. The district court concluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Blaine County
...a district court has no jurisdiction to review a final determination of the district board." Floyd v. Board of Comm'rs of Bonneville County, 137 Idaho 718, 723, 52 P.3d 863, 868 (2002). Because the Board's decision issued June 7, 2005, granting Clear Creek's application for a CUP was appeal......
-
C & G, INC. v. Canyon Highway Dist. No. 4
...a right, to the detriment of another party, which is inconsistent with a position previously taken. Floyd v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Bonneville County, 137 Idaho 718, 726, 52 P.3d 863, 871 (2002) (citing E. Idaho Agric. Credit Ass'n. v. Neibaur, 133 Idaho 402, 410, 987 P.2d 314, 322 (1999)). Quas......
-
Ada County Highway Dist. v. Tsi
...a period of five years, and (2) the road is worked and kept up at the expense of the public. I.C. § 40-202(3); Floyd v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 137 Idaho 718, 724, 52 P.3d 863, 869 (2002). The highway district has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that public rights were esta......
-
E. Side Highway Dist. v. Delavan
...328 (2008) (citations omitted). The elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing Floyd v. Bd. of Comm'rs , 137 Idaho 718, 724, 52 P.3d 863, 869 (2002) ). The establishment of a highway "vests in the public ... [the] right to use[ ] the land over which the road run......