Did County Commissioners Properly Abandon Bridge?

[Rooty1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

Circa 1908, the county (probably using Idaho State dollars) constructed a bridge across a river that was then part of an existing wagon road. I have photos of said bridge as well as an Idaho Transportation Department map with the bridge marked as “County Bridge.”

In 1934, a new highway was constructed rendering the bridge and wagon road no longer necessary.

HOWEVER, subject bridge was still needed to serve as ingress and egress for otherwise landlocked private property owners.

In the late 1940’s or early 1950’s, the bridge was destroyed by flood waters and a swinging foot bridge was constructed as a replacement.

In 1966, the County Commissioners, via a Resolution, abandoned the bridge stating it had not been maintained or used by the public. (It is unclear if their resolution applied to the original bridge, the swinging foot bridge, or both.)

I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned, in the event that there was neither public maintenance nor public use.

The commissioners did not publish their resolution to abandon in a newspaper nor did they contact the property owners dependent upon the bridge.

The county now says publication/notification applied ONLY to State Highway Districts; not county commissioners.

However, Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 448 P.2d 645 (1968), is a case involving the announcement by the county commissioners that they were going to abandon a bridge.   In light of that pronouncement, the residents in the area filed an action to require the commissioners to repair the bridge so it could be used.   The Supreme Court on review of the commissioners' action held that I.C. § 40-501 governed the abandonment of highways and bridges and that the county must go through the formal abandonment process in order to declare the bridge abandoned.  Id. at 642, 448 P.2d at 648.

How could the county’s “no publication/notification” statement be true?

Also, the county has stated that the burden is on me to prove that the county did not follow proper abandonment procedures.

However, I have read that the burden of proof rests on the person claiming the road was abandoned, i.e., the county.

Who bears the burden?

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

Circa 1908, the county (probably using Idaho State dollars) constructed a bridge across a river that was then part of an existing wagon road. I have photos of said bridge as well as an Idaho Transportation Department map with the bridge marked as “County Bridge.”

In 1934, a new highway was constructed rendering the bridge and wagon road no longer necessary.

HOWEVER, subject bridge was still needed to serve as ingress and egress for otherwise landlocked private property owners.

In the late 1940’s or early 1950’s, the bridge was destroyed by flood waters and a swinging foot bridge was constructed as a replacement.

In 1966, the County Commissioners, via a Resolution, abandoned the bridge stating it had not been maintained or used by the public. (It is unclear if their resolution applied to the original bridge, the swinging foot bridge, or both.)

I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned, in the event that there was neither public maintenance nor public use.

The commissioners did not publish their resolution to abandon in a newspaper nor did they contact the property owners dependent upon the bridge.

The county now says publication/notification applied ONLY to State Highway Districts; not county commissioners.

However, Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 448 P.2d 645 (1968), is a case involving the announcement by the county commissioners that they were going to abandon a bridge.   In light of that pronouncement, the residents in the area filed an action to require the commissioners to repair the bridge so it could be used.   The Supreme Court on review of the commissioners' action held that I.C. § 40-501 governed the abandonment of highways and bridges and that the county must go through the formal abandonment process in order to declare the bridge abandoned.  Id. at 642, 448 P.2d at 648.

How could the county’s “no publication/notification” statement be true?

Also, the county has stated that the burden is on me to prove that the county did not follow proper abandonment procedures.

However, I have read that the burden of proof rests on the person claiming the road was abandoned, i.e., the county.

Who bears the burden?

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Explain how the bridge was still needed to provide ingress/egress for landlocked property owners. I am not quite envisioning a scenario where a swinging footbridge would provide adequate/necessary ingress/egress to a landlocked parcel, but can only envision scenarios where it might provide a convenience ingress/egress to a parcel that is not actually landlocked.

 

[Rooty1]

Explain how the bridge was still needed to provide ingress/egress for landlocked property owners. I am not quite envisioning a scenario where a swinging footbridge would provide adequate/necessary ingress/egress to a landlocked parcel, but can only envision scenarios where it might provide a convenience ingress/egress to a parcel that is not actually landlocked.

Thanks so much for reply.

The swinging foot bridge was no doubt not adequate as it forced landlocked property owners to walk back and forth across the river to reach the highway. I suppose they might have been able to continue to use the old wagon road with a vehicle on their side of the river but only if they wanted to travel west.

Putting the landlocked issue aside, is it true that I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned?

And, did I.C. § 40-501 govern the formal abandonment process the county commissioners should have gone through to declare the bridge abandoned?

 

[tranquility]

I have no idea. Nor do I think an attorney from your state skilled in such matters will *know*. This is what is what is known as sui generis. Unique facts for a unique situation at law.

I understand you wanting to find out more. I understand you wanting to know if the issue something that can be won. My advice is that anyone (including a paid attorney) who tells you they know the answer is a liar.

I did not read your cases. I don't know anything about such law. As a person who knows how the law works, I say you might have an argument. If The Man disagrees, he has far more resources than you do. Winning will require you spend all your time in research. Perhaps we can help in some things. For what you want today, not so much. There are so many issues and so many things that can lead to issues, that the best answer we can give is to seek out an attorney.

I understand you are extremely intelligent and have laid out a reasonable scenario to come to the result you want. But, the only way to help is to spend many hours in research. That is not the way this forum rolls. We are far more superficial. There have been times when the question was in the wheelhouse of members actual law was discussed. Usually not.

Good luck.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks so much for reply.

The swinging foot bridge was no doubt not adequate as it forced landlocked property owners to walk back and forth across the river to reach the highway. I suppose they might have been able to continue to use the old wagon road with a vehicle on their side of the river but only if they wanted to travel west.

Putting the landlocked issue aside, is it true that I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned?

And, did I.C. § 40-501 govern the formal abandonment process the county commissioners should have gone through to declare the bridge abandoned?

Ok, lets try this again because you obviously did not understand my questions.

The definition of landlocked is that a person cannot access their property (from any direction) without crossing the property of someone else and if no easement has been established.

Can these people access their property?

 

[Rooty1]

Ok, lets try this again because you obviously did not understand my questions.

The definition of landlocked is that a person cannot access their property (from any direction) without crossing the property of someone else and if no easement has been established.

Can these people access their property?

In 1966, the answer would have been that the property owners could have accessed their property from the west only so I guess technically, they were not landlocked. Besides that, I do not believe the landlocked portion of the abandonment law came into play later.

What I really want to know is if the county commissioners, in 1966, were mandated to follow the procedures outlined in I.C. § 40-203?

Thanks!

 

[LdiJ]

In 1966, the answer would have been that the property owners could have accessed their property from the west only so I guess technically, they were not landlocked. Besides that, I do not believe the landlocked portion of the abandonment law came into play later.

What I really want to know is if the county commissioners, in 1966, were mandated to follow the procedures outlined in I.C. § 40-203?

Thanks!

Then I can only echo Tranq's advise.

However if they were not actually landlocked, then that changes the scenario.

 

[Rooty1]

Then I can only echo Tranq's advise.

However if they were not actually landlocked, then that changes the scenario.

I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned in the event that there was neither public maintenance nor public use for the required five-year period.   See Elder v. Northwest Timber Co., 101 Idaho 356, 613 P.2d 367 (1980).  

Abandonment of a road does not occur without some formal action of the county commissioners.  

Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 448 P.2d 645 (1968), is a case involving the announcement by the county commissioners that they were going to abandon a bridge.   In light of that pronouncement, the residents in the area filed the action to require the commissioners to repair the bridge so it could be used.  

The Supreme Court on review of the commissioners' action held that I.C. § 40-501 governed the abandonment of highways and bridges and that the county must go through the formal abandonment process in order to declare the bridge abandoned.  Id. at 642, 448 P.2d at 648.  

Thus, until the 2013 amendment, the only way to abandon a road created by common law dedication was by formal declaration of abandonment by the county.

So, if I am understanding correctly, I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 both apply to county commissioners - not to Idaho State Highway Districts only. As such, it appears the county commissioners did not properly abandon subject bridge.

 

[LdiJ]

I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 provide a self-executing mechanism under which a public roadway that had been established by prescription could be abandoned in the event that there was neither public maintenance nor public use for the required five-year period.   See Elder v. Northwest Timber Co., 101 Idaho 356, 613 P.2d 367 (1980).  

Abandonment of a road does not occur without some formal action of the county commissioners.  

Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 448 P.2d 645 (1968), is a case involving the announcement by the county commissioners that they were going to abandon a bridge.   In light of that pronouncement, the residents in the area filed the action to require the commissioners to repair the bridge so it could be used.  

The Supreme Court on review of the commissioners' action held that I.C. § 40-501 governed the abandonment of highways and bridges and that the county must go through the formal abandonment process in order to declare the bridge abandoned.  Id. at 642, 448 P.2d at 648.  

Thus, until the 2013 amendment, the only way to abandon a road created by common law dedication was by formal declaration of abandonment by the county.

So, if I am understanding correctly, I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 both apply to county commissioners - not to Idaho State Highway Districts only. As such, it appears the county commissioners did not properly abandon subject bridge.

What is it that you want to accomplish at this point? You are talking about something that happened 50 years ago.

 

[Rooty1]

What is it that you want to accomplish at this point? You are talking about something that happened 50 years ago.

The point I am trying to accomplish is to prove that I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 applied to County Commissioners in 1966.

My local PA has stated subject statutes only applied to the State of Idaho's Highway Districts.

If, in fact, I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 were not followed by the county commissioners in 1966, then they did not properly abandon subject bridge and therefore they still own it.

And, if they still own it, then they must make necessary repairs.

 

[Just Blue]

The point I am trying to accomplish is to prove that I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 applied to County Commissioners in 1966.

My local PA has stated subject statutes only applied to the State of Idaho's Highway Districts.

If, in fact, I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 were not followed by the county commissioners in 1966, then they did not properly abandon subject bridge and therefore they still own it.

And, if they still own it, then they must make necessary repairs.

****************************

 

[LdiJ]

The point I am trying to accomplish is to prove that I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 applied to County Commissioners in 1966.

My local PA has stated subject statutes only applied to the State of Idaho's Highway Districts.

If, in fact, I.C. § 40-104 and I.C. § 40-203 were not followed by the county commissioners in 1966, then they did not properly abandon subject bridge and therefore they still own it.

And, if they still own it, then they must make necessary repairs.

You do realize that the cost of taking the necessary court action to attempt to force them to repair the bridge could easily cost more than the actual repair of the bridge?

 

[Rooty1]

You do realize that the cost of taking the necessary court action to attempt to force them to repair the bridge could easily cost more than the actual repair of the bridge?

Yes, I do realize that. But I still want to know if the bridge was properly abandoned.

 

[LdiJ]

Yes, I do realize that. But I still want to know if the bridge was properly abandoned.

Do you have any idea of who and how many people ever actually used the bridge? That would help determine whether or not you would have a valid argument that the bridge was a publically used bridge.

Anyway, like Tranquility said, you are not going to get an answer to your question on a forum like this. You need a local attorney.

 

[Rooty1]

Do you have any idea of who and how many people ever actually used the bridge? That would help determine whether or not you would have a valid argument that the bridge was a publically used bridge.

Anyway, like Tranquility said, you are not going to get an answer to your question on a forum like this. You need a local attorney.

Yes, I have information as to who used the bridge and it was indeed public.

I shall shop around for an attorney.

Thanks!