This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose when the County of Rio Arriba sent road crews to blade a road across two ranches: one owned by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe (Theis Ranch) and the other by Chavez (Chavez property). The County claimed the road was a public road by prescription, while the Tribe and Chavez objected, alleging trespass and other violations. The Tribe's ranch was purchased in 1985 and later placed in trust by the United States in 1988 (paras 3-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Rio Arriba County: Dismissed all claims by the Tribe and Chavez, ruling that a public road by prescription had been established across their properties (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant Jicarilla Apache Tribe: Argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the County's claim of a public road by prescription over its land, as it was Indian land subject to federal restrictions (paras 7-9).
- Appellant Chavez: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish a public road by prescription over her property and challenged the width and location of the road determined by the district court (paras 31-32, 47-51).
- Respondent Board of County Commissioners: Asserted that the road had been used by the public "since time immemorial," creating a public prescriptive easement, and that the district court had jurisdiction as the Tribe had initially consented to it (paras 5-6, 24-27).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the County's claim of a public road by prescription over the Tribe's land?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish a public road by prescription over Chavez's property?
- Did the district court err in determining the width and location of the public road across Chavez's property?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision regarding the Tribe, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction (para 30).
- The Court of Appeals partially reversed and remanded the decision regarding Chavez, requiring a redetermination of the road's width and specific findings on its location (paras 47-52).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction Over the Tribe's Land:
The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the County's claim of a public road by prescription over the Tribe's land. The Theis Ranch, purchased by the Tribe in 1985, was subject to federal restrictions under the Nonintercourse Act, which preempted state jurisdiction. Public Law 280 and related case law confirmed that state courts could not adjudicate interests in Indian land subject to federal restrictions (paras 7-23, 30).
Public Road by Prescription Over Chavez's Property:
The court found sufficient evidence to support the establishment of a public road by prescription over Chavez's property. Testimony and exhibits demonstrated public use of the road for various purposes over a prolonged period, meeting the legal requirements for a prescriptive easement (paras 31-41).
Width and Location of the Road:
The court held that the district court erred in determining the road's width as 500 feet without sufficient evidence. The width of a public road by prescription must be "reasonably necessary for public travel," not based on its maximum historical width. Additionally, the district court failed to make specific findings on the road's precise location, necessitating a remand for further determination (paras 47-52).
Other Issues:
The court summarily dismissed Chavez's claims regarding the district court's consideration of evidence from 1832-81 and the sufficiency of County recognition and maintenance of the road, finding them without merit (paras 53-54).