Nemeth v. Shoshone Cnty.
| Decision Date | 26 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46118 |
| Citation | 453 P.3d 844,165 Idaho 851 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Peter NEMETH and Mary M. Nemeth, husband and wife, and as Co-Trustees of the Peter and Mary Nemeth Family Trust, dated April 28, 2009, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHOSHONE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho acting through the Shoshone County Board of Commissioners, Mike Fitzgerald, Jay Huber, and John Hansen, Commissioners in their official capacities, Defendants-Respondents. |
Lukins & Annis, PS, Coeur d'Alene, for Appellants. Mischelle Rae Fulgham argued.
Givens Pursley, LLP, Boise, for Respondents. Christopher H. Meyer argued.
This case concerns the extent of Idaho's jurisdiction to validate a right-of-way across federal lands—a recurring source of litigation throughout the West. Peter Nemeth and his wife Mary Nemeth (now deceased), and Peter Nemeth acting as trustee of the Peter and Mary Nemeth Family Trust (collectively, "the Nemeths"), petitioned Shoshone County to validate a public right-of-way across federal land pursuant to Idaho Code section 40-204A and United States Revised Statute 2477 ("R.S. 2477"). The right-of-way follows a road ("the Road") which crosses federal land that Nemeths claim historically provided access to their property and patented mining claims. When the County failed to act on the petition, the Nemeths filed a declaratory judgment action seeking validation of the right-of-way pursuant to Idaho Code section 40-208(7). On a motion from the County, the district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) on the basis that because the Road traverses federal land, only a federal court has jurisdiction to hear the claim, which must be brought under the federal Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. section 2409a.
The Nemeths appealed, arguing that state courts have jurisdiction to validate rights-of-way on federal land pursuant to R.S. 2477 and that the QTA does not preempt Idaho law that provides for such validation. The County argues that the district court lacks jurisdiction because only a federal court can validate a right-of-way over disputed federal land, thereby requiring the issue to be resolved in federal court under the QTA. We reverse because the district court erred in dismissing the Nemeths’ action on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Granite Gulch Road (the Road) is an old dirt road that provides access across National Forest Service lands to the Nemeths’ real property and accompanying mining claims in Shoshone County. The Road was built in 1906 with the County investing $1,290 in the Road's development. Eighteen maps spanning from 1929 to 2003—including multiple maps produced by the U.S. Forest Service—show the location of the Road with an accompanying description. These descriptions include identifications such as "a good motor road," "an improved road," "dirt road," "primitive road," and "unimproved; 4-wheel drive road." Only in 2001 was the Road removed from Forest Service maps. In addition, other documents in the record identify the Road's original purpose as providing access for the various mines located within Granite Gulch. The record also includes information about the mines, including surveys of the buildings and equipment to which the Road provided access.
In late 2016, the Nemeths contracted to sell the real property, but they could not close the sale until they ensured they had a right-of-way to access the property via the Road. The National Forest Service refused to recognize a right existed because the Road had never been determined to be a right-of-way pursuant to R.S. 2477. As a result, on September 22, 2016, the Nemeths petitioned the highway district commissioners of Shoshone County for public right-of-way validation of the Road pursuant to Idaho Code section 40-204A. The Nemeths noted in their petition that they would pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of the validation proceedings, as required by Idaho Code section 40-203A.
After nearly eight months, on May 17, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners notified the Nemeths of its failure to act on their petition and informed them that they could "exercise any remedies available pursuant to Idaho Code, including but not limited to I.C. 40-208(7)." Idaho Code section 40-208(7) provides in pertinent part: "If the commissioners having jurisdiction over the highway system do not initiate a proceeding in response to such a petition within thirty (30) days, the person may seek a determination by quiet title or other available judicial means." The notification also referred the Nemeths to "prior litigation involving similar request(s) in County of Shoshone of Idaho v. United States , 912 F. Supp. 2d 912 (D. Idaho 2012)."
Consequently, on June 14, 2017, the Nemeths filed a Verified Petition for Judicial Review and Declaratory Relief in district court seeking to have the Road validated as an R.S. 2477 public right-of-way. On August 22, 2017, Shoshone County filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Nemeths’ petition on the bases that (1) there was no final action for the district court to review under a petition for judicial review, (2) the federal QTA is the only means available to validate the Road, and (3) the petition for judicial review was improperly combined with the declaratory relief action. On January 2, 2018, the Nemeths filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Court heard the motions on January 29, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the County's motion to dismiss the petition for judicial review because there was no county action to review.1 It also dismissed the petition for a declaratory judgment on the bases that it did not have "authority to enter a declaratory judgment where Federal courts have jurisdiction and it is the county ... that has the initial responsibility and duty to determine the public validation question." Accordingly, the district court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss upon the bases stated on the record. The Nemeths immediately appealed, but because the district court had not yet entered a final judgment, the appeal was conditionally dismissed by this Court. The district court subsequently entered a final judgment dismissing the Nemeths’ claims on July 25, 2018, and the Nemeths timely appealed the dismissal of their claims.
"This Court exercises free review over jurisdictional issues, including ‘whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was properly granted.’ " Paslay v. A&B Irr. Dist. , 162 Idaho 866, 868, 406 P.3d 878, 880 (2017) (quoting Tucker v. State , 162 Idaho 11, 17, 394 P.3d 54, 60 (2017) ). In addition, when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), Employers Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Ronk , 162 Idaho 774, 777, 405 P.3d 33, 36 (2017) (quoting Joki v. State , 162 Idaho 5, 8, 394 P.3d 48, 51 (2017) ).
The district court dismissed the Nemeths’ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Nemeths argue that pursuant to R.S. 2477 and Idaho Code sections 40-208(7), 40-203A, and 40-204A, counties and state courts have jurisdiction to validate a R.S. 2477 right-of-way over federal land, including the Road at issue. We agree. For the reasons explained below, we hold that (1) the QTA does not conflict with or supersede the provisions of R.S. 2477 and Idaho laws that allow for county validation of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way on federal land, and (2) Idaho Code section 40-208(7) permits a district court to validate an R.S. 2477 right-of-way through a declaratory judgment action.
In 1866, to promote the growth of the vast and largely undeveloped western territories of the United States following the Civil War, Congress passed an open-ended grant of a "right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses." This grant, commonly referred to as "R.S. 2477," permitted most of the transportation routes across the western United States to be built. Southern Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. , 425 F.3d 735, 740–42 (10th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh'g (Jan. 6, 2006) (quoting Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932, repealed by Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Pub.L. No. 94–579 § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743 ). The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the congressional intent behind R.S. 2477 and concluded that "[t]hese roads, in the fullest sense of the words, were necessary aids to the development and disposition of the public lands." Cent. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Alameda Cty., Cal. , 284 U.S. 463, 473, 52 S.Ct. 225, 76 L.Ed. 402 (1932). R.S. 2477 remained in effect for 110 years, until congressional policy no longer embraced development of unreserved public lands. Id.
In 1976, congressional policy over public land management shifted towards conservation and preservation, and Congress repealed R.S. 2477 with the adoption of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Id. Consequently, no new R.S. 2477 rights of way could be established; however, any prior, valid right-of-ways existing on the date of FLPMA's enactment—October 21, 1976—would continue in effect. Id. Leaving rights in existence which were created prior to the enactment date effectively "grandfathered" such claims, expressly protecting and preserving...
To continue reading
Request your trial