Goluba v. Griffith, 90CA1479
| Decision Date | 05 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90CA1479,90CA1479 |
| Citation | 830 P.2d 1090 |
| Parties | Nicholas W. GOLUBA, Jr., and June E. Goluba, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James W. GRIFFITH, Jr., and Mary Farver Griffith, Defendants-Appellants. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Nicholas W. Goluba, Jr., Glenwood Springs, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Peter Van Domelen, P.C., Peter Van Domelen, Basalt, for defendants-appellants.
Opinion by Judge HUME.
Defendants, James W. Griffith, Jr., and Mary Farver Griffith, appeal from the final judgment and decree establishing a public roadway 32 feet wide across their lands in Eagle County. Plaintiffs, Nicholas W. Goluba, Jr., and June E. Goluba, own the adjacent property to the north and, together with other members of the public, have used the roadway historically for access from the county road to the area north of defendants' property. We affirm.
After a trial to the court in December 1985, the trial court determined that the road had been used adversely by the general public since 1915 with no objection by the previous owners until 1979, when defendants' predecessors acquired the property. At the time this action was commenced, members of the public continued to use the road. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the road was a public highway pursuant to § 43-2-201(1)(c), C.R.S. (1984 Repl.Vol. 17) and that the highway had not been abandoned. The trial court further concluded that defendants' property interest was subject to the public highway. Defendants have not appealed from those rulings.
In its order of April 1, 1986, the trial court expressly reserved jurisdiction until an accurate description of the location and width of the public highway could be prepared and submitted to the court for incorporation into a final decree. The order also provided that, if the parties were unable to agree upon an accurate description, the court would conduct a supplemental hearing and take additional evidence to establish the highway's location and width.
Subsequently, the parties agreed upon a description of the center line of the highway but were unable to agree upon the highway's width. Pursuant to the previous order, a hearing was held on May 10, 1990, at which the trial court considered additional evidence.
In its final judgment, the court determined that ten feet on either side of the center line should accommodate the historical use of the traveled portion of the roadway and permit safe passing of vehicles going in opposite directions. The court further determined that, to accommodate the historical use of the highway, an additional six feet on either side of the traveled portion were required for support, drainage, maintenance, and repairs. Accordingly, the trial court decreed that the highway's width extended 16 feet from either side of the center line.
Defendants contend that the judgment must be reversed because the evidence did not establish adverse use of a roadway 32 feet wide for its entire course. We do not agree with this contention.
The width of a public highway acquired by prescription must be limited in the decree to that established by the public use. Lovvorn v. Salisbury, 701 P.2d 142 (Colo.App.1985); Goerke v. Town of Manitou, 25 Colo.App. 482, 139 P. 1049 (1914). However, a highway's width is not limited to the actual beaten path but extends to such width as is reasonably necessary to accommodate the established public use. Olson v. Bonham, 212 Neb. 548, 324 N.W.2d 260 (1982); Leo M. Bertagnole, Inc. v. Pine Meadow Ranches, 639 P.2d 211 (Utah 1981); see also Annotation, Width and Boundaries of Public Highway Acquired by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farm Credit of S. Colorado v. Mason
...v. Schultz , 222 P.3d 303, 307 (Colo. 2010). But, we examine the trial court's factual findings for clear error. Goluba v. Griffith , 830 P.2d 1090, 1091 (Colo. App. 1991).2. Discussion ¶ 53 Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars relitigating an issue when a court has already decide......
-
Associates of San Lazaro v. San Lazaro Park Properties, 92SC144
...People in re M.S.H., 656 P.2d 1294 (Colo.1983); Peterson v. Ground Water Comm'n, 195 Colo. 508, 579 P.2d 629 (1978); Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo.App.1991). The evidence clearly establishes that the Associates informed San Lazaro that the number of constructed sites exceeded the ......
-
Interbank Inv. v. Vail Valley Consol. Water
...evidence, and the inferences and conclusions drawn from it, were within the province of the trial court, see generally Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo.App.1991), we can not disturb its determination here. Consequently, we uphold the trial court's ruling and conclude that plaintiff i......
-
Clinger v. Hartshorn
...two passing vehicles. Again, we disagree. The trial court made its width determination based on the standard set out in Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo.App.1991). Plaintiff notes that Goluba concerned the width of a public easement rather than a private easement. Nonetheless, the st......
-
Chapter 32 - § 32.2 • ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC ROADS
...of County Comm'rs v. Ogburn, 554 P.2d 700 (Colo. App. 1976); Lovvorn v. Salisbury, 701 P.2d 142 (Colo. App. 1985); Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo. App. 1991).[49] Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo. App. 1991).[50] Lovvorn v. Salisbury, 701 P.2d 142 (Colo. App. 1985). of Count......
-
Chapter 12 - § 12.5 • PUBLIC ROADS
...Mahnke v. Coughenour, 458 P.2d 747 (Colo. 1969).[80] Martino v. Fleenor, 365 P.2d 247 (Colo. 1961).[81] Goluba v. Griffith, 830 P.2d 1090 (Colo. App. 1991).[82] Lovvorn, 701 P.2d 142.[83] Simon v. Pettit, 651 P.2d 418 (Colo. App. 1982), aff'd, 687 P.2d 1299 (Colo. 1984).[84] Boulder Medical......