North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cv-102 (consolidated case),Case No. 1:12-cv-125 (lead case) |
| Parties | North Dakota, ex rel. Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General for the State of North Dakota, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Billings County, North Dakota; Golden Valley County, North Dakota; McKenzie County, North Dakota; and Slope County, North Dakota, municipal entities, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was tried before the Court on November 18-20, 2019, in Bismarck, North Dakota. See Doc. No. 304. This case originated on July 30, 2012, when Billings County, McKenzie County, Slope County, and Golden Valley County initiated an action against the Defendant United States of America ("United States") to quiet title to their claims of section line rights-of-way in the Little Missouri National Grassland as well as six individual roads claimed by McKenzie County. See Doc. No. 1 (Case No. 1:12-cv-102). Shortly thereafter, the State of North Dakota filed a complaint against the United States to quiet title to its claim of section line rights- of-way within the Little Missouri National Grassland, the Sheyenne National Grassland, and the portion of the Cedar River National Grassland located in North Dakota, all of which are a part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. See Doc. No. 1 (Case No. 1:12-cv-125). The Court eventually consolidated the two actions. See Doc. No. 24. After consolidation, the Counties twice more amended their complaint.1 See Doc. Nos. 163 and 229. On June 26, 2017, this Court granted the United States' motions to dismiss North Dakota's claim to quiet title to section line rights-of-way in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands and the Counties' claim to quiet title to section line rights-of way in the Little Missouri National Grassland, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims because the Quiet Title Act limitation period had run before the actions were commenced. See Doc. No. 190.
After dismissing the State of North Dakota's claims, the causes of action brought by the Counties, as alleged in the Counties' fourth amended and supplemental complaint, remained in dispute. These claims sought to quiet title to: (1) County Road #193, (2) Township Road #172/Road #1, (3) Road #2, (4) Road #3, (5) Township Road #169, and (6) County Road #30. See Doc. No. 229.
On October 31, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Counties as to Township Road #169. See Doc. No. 271.
On November 13, 2019, the United States notified the Court of its intent, under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(e), to disclaim any interest it may have adverse to the Plaintiff Counties' claimed rights-of-way over three (3) roads: a portion of County Road #193, also known as Long X Divide Road; Township Road #172, also known as Dassenko Road; and County Road #30, also known as DivideRoad. See Doc. No. 291. Based on these representations, the Court excluded from trial any evidence which may relate to the United States' claimed adverse interest in County Road #193, Township Road #172, and County Road #30, or parts thereof. See Doc. No. 296.
On November 25, 2019, the Counties filed a statement withdrawing their claims to Road #1. See Doc. No. 311. Therefore, only three (3) Quiet Title Act road claims remained for trial: Plaintiff McKenzie County seeks to quiet title to Road #2 (Achenbach Road), and Road #3 (Corral Creek Road), and the segment of County Road #193 (Long X Road) not disclaimed by the United States. All of the roads are located in McKenzie County within the Little Missouri National Grasslands. McKenzie County asserts these roads were established as county roads by 20 years of public use under R.S. 2477 and N.D.C.C. § 24-07-01 prior to the federal government reacquiring the underlying lands in the later 1930s. See Doc. No. 229, p. 20-21, 31-39. The Court heard the testimony presented at trial, carefully reviewed the deposition testimony submitted to the Court, and considered all of the evidence. Both parties were well-represented by experienced counsel. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1) Billings County is a municipal entity established pursuant to North Dakota law.
2) Golden Valley County is a municipal entity established pursuant to North Dakota law.
3) McKenzie County is a municipal entity established pursuant to North Dakota law.
4) Slope County is a municipal entity established pursuant to North Dakota law.
5) Defendant United States owns the land through which the claimed rights-of-way in the action lie.
6) On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' first cause of action, which asserted title over all of the section lines in the Little Missouri National Grassland. See Doc. No. 190.
7) The Court held that the 1976/1977 Travel Plans for the Sheyenne National Grassland and the Little Missouri National Grassland, as well as the 1980 Travel Plan for the Sheyenne National Grassland, triggered the statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act ("QTA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g), because the travel plans restricted all motorized vehicles to existing roads within certain portions of the National Grasslands. See Doc. No. 190, pp. 43-48, 58-60, 70. The Court held the restrictions on use provided both North Dakota and the Counties notice of the United States' adverse claim to the section line rights-of-way because the definition of "existing road" in the Travel Plans served to exclude travel within the thirty-three (33) feet on either side of a section line when recurring use with soil displacement and compaction was not present. Id. at 46. The Court further held that since both North Dakota and the Counties received notice of the United States' claim more than twelve (12) years before the commencement of their actions, their section line rights-of-way claims were barred under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2409a(g) and (i) and divested the Court of jurisdiction over the claims. Id. at 48, 70.
8) On October 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order ruling on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims for title for rights-of-way over the remaining six individual roads: (1) County Road #193, (2) Township Road #172/Road #1, (3) Road #2, (4) Road #3, (5) Township Road #169, and (6) County Road #30. The Courtgranted in part and denied in part the Counties' motion for partial summary judgment and denied the United States' motion for partial summary judgment. See Doc. No. 271.
9) In the October 31, 2019 Order, the Court held that the fencing of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park did not trigger the statute of limitations as to County Road #193 and Road #2 because the disputed portions of these two roads outside of the Park had independent utility and remained in use by local farmers, ranchers, hunters, and recreationists. See Doc. No. 217, pp. 15-17. The Court left for trial the issue of whether the 1976/1977 Travel Plan triggered the QTA statute of limitations for McKenzie County's claims to quiet title to Township Road #172/Road #1 and Road #3 - the issue being whether Township Road #172/Road #1 and Road #3 were "existing roads" under the Travel Plan. Id. at 12-13.
10) In the October 31, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Counties' motion for partial summary judgment as to Township Road #169 because the parties agreed that the road was established by petition and road order prior to the United States' reacquisition of the land surrounding the roads, and that such reacquisition was subject to McKenzie County's interest in the roads. See Doc. No. 271, p. 23. The Court further held that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to McKenzie County's claim to quiet title to County Road #30, County Road #193, Township Road #172/Road #1, Road #2, and Road #3 and, therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate. Id. at 21-23.
11) On November 13, 2019, and days before the trial, the United States notified the Court of its intention to disclaim any adverse interest in three (3) claimed roads at issue - Road #30, Road #193, and Road #172 - that had been established by petition under North Dakota law. See Doc. No. 291. The United States filed a disclaimer of interest on January 3, 2020. See Doc. No. 316.
12) On November 15, 2019, the Court entered an Order excluding from trial any evidence that may relate to the United States' claimed adverse interest in County Road #193, Township Road #172, and County Road #30. See Doc. No. 296. The Court also directed the United States to expeditiously finalize the QTA disclaimers as well as supporting documentation needed to quiet title in favor of McKenzie County to the rights-of-way to the three roads. Id. at 2.
13) On November 14, 2019, the Court entered an Order denying the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Inferring Adverse Use of Roads. See Doc. No. 294. The Court held that it could draw reasonable inferences based upon the evidence presented to determine whether the public's use of a road was adverse. Id. at 3. In a bench trial, there is little reason to exclude potentially irrelevant evidence because the Court is capable of determining what evidence is relevant in reaching its decision. The Court also denied the United States' request to exclude the Counties' historical expert report for the same reason. Id.
14) On November 15, 2019, the Court entered an Order denying the United States' Motions in Limine to Exclude the April 3, 2000 U.S. Forest Service Map and April 7, 2000 Spike Thompson Letter, and Evidence of Use of Roads After United States' Reacquisition. See Doc. No. 298. The Court held there is little reason to exclude potentially irrelevant evidence because the Court is capable of determining what evidence is relevant in reaching its decision.
15) At...
To continue reading
Request your trial