Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Title topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court considers whether 1886 townsite plat or 1890 federal patent controls Moab street strip
Summary
In Johnson v. Moab City the Court of Appeals debated whether an 1886 townsite plat (recorded as a public street) vested the city’s interest before an 1890 federal patent to Luster, and whether laches or adverse-possession theories defeat the city’s claim; counsel also disputed whether indispensable parties (Luster heirs) were required in the quiet-title action.
Christopher McMan, counsel for the city of Moab, told the court the dispute hinges on historic instruments: the city’s 1886 townsite plat (he said recorded as a public street) predated a July 1890 federal patent to Luster and therefore the city’s interest should prevail under the "first in time" rule for federal instruments.
"This action concerns facts that actually predate statehood for the state of Utah," McMan said, invoking the federal Townsites Act and arguing the recorded plat and century-long reliance favor Moab. He urged the court to give the historical recording presumptions weight and to reverse the trial court for failing to address laches properly.
Appellant counsel pressed competing factual theories: that a Luster patent and subsequent possession by predecessors created competing title claims, that adverse-possession doctrines and privity/tacking questions matter, and that Luster’s heirs (or other historical claimants) may be indispensable parties. Judges asked whether the record preserved the city’s legal theories and whether undisputed facts on summary judgment could support a laches determination on appeal.
The panel also probed whether municipal protections bar adverse-possession claims against a city, whether taxes and recorded improvements change the analysis, and whether the absence of a named heir (Luster’s successors) affects the viability of the quiet-title remedy.
After argument, the court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue its opinion in due course.
