State Ex Rel. Haman v. Fox
594 P.2d 1093, 100 Idaho 140, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20507 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The general public, as distinguished from specific individuals or a legally organized entity, cannot acquire rights to use private property by prescription, absent express statutory authorization. An owner's intent to dedicate private land for public use must be clearly and unequivocally proven and will not be presumed from long-continued public use alone.
Facts:
- C. R. W. Fox, Eileen Fox, and the estate of Carmelita K. McDonald own adjoining residential properties on Lake Coeur d’Alene, which include sandy beach lots.
- For many decades, since at least the 1920s, the public has used the sandy beach area of these properties for recreational purposes like sunbathing and picnicking.
- The property owners and their predecessors in title had maintained seawalls to protect the property from erosion.
- The owners at various times personally, or with the help of city police, ousted unwelcome users from the property.
- In 1971, the owners obtained city permits and constructed a new, larger concrete seawall that extended approximately 20 feet closer to the lake than the previous walls.
- This new seawall enclosed a 20-foot by 250-foot area of the beach, effectively preventing the public from using that portion of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Prosecuting Attorney of Kootenai County, on behalf of the people of the state of Idaho, filed an action against property owners C. R. W. Fox, Eileen Fox, and Burgess K. McDonald in an Idaho district court.
- The lawsuit sought an injunction to force the removal of a seawall and to prevent interference with the public's alleged right to use the beach property.
- The claims were based on theories of prescriptive easement, implied dedication, and custom.
- After a trial to the court, the district court found the public had no right or interest in the property and entered a judgment in favor of the property owners.
- The plaintiff, the people of the state of Idaho, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the general public acquire a prescriptive easement over private property through long-term, uninterrupted recreational use?
Opinions:
Majority - McFadden, Justice
No, the general public does not acquire a prescriptive easement over private property through such use. A prescriptive right is a personal right that belongs exclusively to the actual adverse user and cannot be acquired by the public at large. The court reasoned that since a landowner must have the ability to sue a specific trespasser to stop the prescriptive period from running, a claim by the amorphous 'general public' is untenable because it leaves the owner with no specific party to sue. The court also rejected claims based on implied dedication, holding that an owner's intent to dedicate must be clearly and unequivocally shown, not presumed from public use. Finally, it found the claim of customary rights failed because the use was not from 'time immemorial' and was interrupted by the owners' actions.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strong pro-property rights stance in Idaho law, contrasting with judicial trends in other coastal states that favor finding public access to private beaches. The court's holding makes it exceptionally difficult for public access rights to be established through historical use, requiring claimants to proceed as specific individuals rather than as a collective public. By rejecting the doctrine of implied dedication based on public use and setting a high bar for customary rights, the case significantly limits the avenues for creating public recreational easements over private land without the owner's express consent or legislative action.
Unlock the full brief for State Ex Rel. Haman v. Fox