Shadow Valley litigation endures

SANDPOINT — A 1st District judge is declining to grant summary judgment to landowners who are fighting Bonner County’s establishment of a public road through their property north of Clark Fork, court records show.

Judge Lansing Haynes’ ruling means a jury will have to decide the actual location of Brush Road and whether it continues to exist as a public right of way.

The county contends Brush Road was created in 1903 and laid out on the present location of Shadow Valley Lane, which David Walker and Matthew and Elizabeth Deen use as their driveway.

Counsel for the Deens argued Brush Road was not actually built on Shadow Valley because its route was shifted onto what’s now Stoney Brooke Lane to avoid a wetland and seasonal flooding conditions.

The Deens and Walkers moved for summary judgment on grounds there were no genuine material issues of fact to be argued in their bid to stop the county from making the faded track a public road.

Haynes ruled there was no doubt that Brush Road was laid out and recorded across the present-day location of Shadow Valley Lane.

However, a genuine material issue of fact remained over whether Bonner County passively abandoned the route by not using it for a period of five years.

“Thus Bonner County did have a right of way across the present location of Shadow Valley Lane, but Bonner County possibly abandoned its right of way sometime prior to 1963 by not building and maintaining the road in that location,” Haynes said in a Dec. 17 written decision.

The county discovered Brush Road in road records as it grappled with how to preserve public access to a subdivision originally developed by Walker. Officials contend Stoney Brooke Lane was improperly identified as the legal access to the Liberty Heights subdivision, which prompted landowners on Stoney Brooke to erect a gate.

The Walkers and Deens maintain Stoney Brooke is public, although Haynes found that it's still unclear if that's indeed the case. Questions also remain over whether Brush Road deviated onto Stoney Brooke, Haynes ruled.

Moreover, the couples' claims against the county for trespass and conversion can't be resolved without first determining whether the county passively abandoned the right of way, Haynes said in the ruling.

The Walkers and Deens filed suit against landowners who put up the gate blocking Stoney Brooke at Cherry Lane last summer. The couples moved for summary judgment in that matter, but Haynes said factual issues remain regarding easements referenced in a chain of title.

However, Haynes ruled that one of the easements granted the Walkers and Deens access to part, but not all of their respective properties. As a result, Haynes ordered that keys to the gate be provided to the Walkers and Deens or remove the gate, court records show.?