Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Stichting Mayflower Recreation Fonds v. United Park City Mines Company, Redus Park City LLC, Empire Pass Master Owners Association, Inc., and Red Cloud Homeowners Association

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment against Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Stichting Mayflower Recreation Fonds on claims seeking recognition of a public highway under R.S. 2477 and Utah law, as well as a common-law prescriptive easement. The court held that the evidence did not establish the required period of public use before the relevant land became private, and that the prescriptive-easement arguments raised on appeal were not preserved below. The court also affirmed denial of leave to file a second amended complaint under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

Holdings

1. Mayflower failed as a matter of law to establish the public-use period required for the road to become a public highway under R.S. 2477. Because the road's relevant land became private on October 13, 1881, neither the twenty-year common-law period nor the five-year period under the 1880 Utah Highway Act could have been completed by that date.
2. The court affirmed summary judgment on the prescriptive-easement claim because Mayflower failed to present the relevant evidence and legal analysis to the district court and could not raise that analysis for the first time on appeal.
3. The district court acted within its discretion in denying Mayflower leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed claims were asserted after extensive delay, without adequate justification, and contrary to the court's prior order requiring specific disclosure of the claims.
4. The court did not need to decide the extent of United Park City's standing because REDUS substituted for United Park City as to the transferred property, adopted United Park City's briefing, and appeared through the same counsel to advance the same arguments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mayflower established a genuine issue of material fact that the road became a public highway under R.S. 2477 and Utah law before the land became private in 1881.
2. Whether Mayflower preserved in the district court the evidence and legal arguments it offered on appeal to challenge summary judgment on its prescriptive-easement claim.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a second amended complaint adding or clarifying appurtenant-easement and private-access claims.
4. Whether the transfer of some property from United Park City to REDUS deprived United Park City of standing to defend the judgment on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed