Niemi v. Fredlund Township , 2015 S.D. 62 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • #27278-a-JMK
    
    2015 S.D. 62
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    OF THE
    STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    ****
    DAVID NIEMI and
    ROXIE ANNE NIEMI,                               Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    v.
    FREDLUND TOWNSHIP, and STATE
    OF SOUTH DAKOTA, by and through
    its Office of School and Public Lands,          Defendants and Appellees,
    and
    JERRY REISENAUER and
    RIATA HILLS LLC,                                Defendants, Third-Party
    Plaintiffs and Appellees,
    v.
    RON DRAGOO, TRUSTEE OF
    THE M.L. DRAGOO 6/16/2003
    REVOCABLE TRUST,                                Third-Party Defendant.
    ****
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
    THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
    PERKINS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
    ****
    THE HONORABLE RANDALL L. MACY
    Judge
    ****
    CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
    ON MAY 26, 2015
    OPINION FILED 07/15/15
    BRADLEY P. GORDON
    TIMOTHY J. VANDER HEIDE of
    Barker Wilson Law Firm, LLP
    Belle Fourche, South Dakota   Attorneys for plaintiffs
    and appellants.
    ERIC H. BOGUE of
    Bogue & Bogue, LLP
    Faith, South Dakota           Attorneys for defendant and
    appellee Fredlund Township.
    MARTY J. JACKLEY
    Attorney General
    RICHARD M. WILLIAMS
    MATTHEW E. NAASZ
    Assistant Attorneys General
    Pierre, South Dakota          Attorneys for defendant and
    appellee State of South Dakota,
    by and through its Office of
    School and Public Lands.
    DWIGHT A. GUBBRUD
    KELLEN WILLERT of
    Bennett, Main & Gubbrud, PC
    Belle Fourche, South Dakota   Attorneys for defendants, third-
    party plaintiffs and appellees
    Jerry Reisenauer and Riata
    Hills LLC.
    #27278
    KERN, Justice
    [¶1.]        Landowners filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a
    determination that the road traversing their property is not a road open to the
    public. After a court trial, the circuit court held that the landowners and their
    predecessors in interest had dedicated the road to the public by implication. The
    landowners appeal. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    [¶2.]        This case involves a dispute over a road located on real property owned
    by David and Roxie Niemi in Fredlund Township, Perkins County, South Dakota.
    For the last 100 years, the road has been referred to as the “Lewton Road.” The
    Lewton family homesteaded the area and used to live at a residence at the end of
    the road, commonly known as the “Lewton Place.” It was reported that Lewton
    Road was the only means of access to Lewton Place.
    [¶3.]        In March 2012, the Niemis brought suit in circuit court against
    Fredlund Township. The Niemis sought a declaratory judgment that the portion of
    Lewton Road that traverses their property is not a public road. The Niemis
    submitted that they brought suit because the Township had been operating as if
    Lewton Road was a public road. The Township filed an answer denying the Niemis’
    claim. The owners of land accessible by Lewton Road—Jerry Reisenauer, Riata
    Hills LLC, and the South Dakota Office of School and Public Lands—filed separate
    motions to intervene. After the court granted their motions, Reisenauer, Riata
    Hills, and the Office of School and Public Lands each filed separate counterclaims
    requesting a declaratory ruling that Lewton Road is a public road, or in the
    -1-
    #27278
    alternative, that they are entitled to an easement by prescription. Reisenauer and
    Riata Hills also filed a third-party complaint against Ron Dragoo as the trustee of
    the M.L. Dragoo Revocable Trust. The Dragoo family originally owned the property.
    The Niemis are purchasing the property from the Dragoo Trust under a contract for
    deed. A default judgment was subsequently entered against the Dragoo Trust for
    its failure to appear.
    [¶4.]        A court trial was held on February 25 and 26, 2014. A number of
    witnesses testified regarding the historical origin of Lewton Road and to the actions
    of the Township in relation to Lewton Road. Jim LeFebre, who was age 75 at the
    time of the trial, testified that his grandfather Albert Fredlund was the area’s first
    homesteader in 1900 and that the Township was named after him. LeFebre, a
    lifelong resident of the Township, has served as the clerk for the Township Board
    since 1963. He submitted that he was familiar with Lewton Road and the property
    owned by the Niemis, which is now known as Section 20. According to LeFebre,
    O.F. Dragoo homesteaded the land that includes Section 20. At some point, O.F.
    Dragoo transferred his interest in Section 20 to his son, Edgar Dragoo. LeFebre
    relayed that Edgar was the clerk of the Township Board of Supervisors from 1939 to
    1962. When Edgar passed away, LeFebre became the clerk. As clerk, LeFebre was
    charged with the duty of recording the minutes of the Township’s meetings in the
    Township books. He explained that the Township meeting occurred once a year and
    primarily concerned Township roads.
    [¶5.]        LeFebre described Lewton Road and the land it traverses. Lewton
    Road begins off Highway 75 and travels south and west across Section 20, Section
    -2-
    #27278
    30, and into Section 31, where it ends at the old Lewton Place, just north of the
    South Grand River. LeFebre testified that Lewton Dam is located in Section 19,
    just outside Section 20, and is accessed by Lewton Road. When he was a child,
    LeFebre’s parents would take him and his siblings to the dam to ice skate in the
    winter. LeFebre indicated that people continue to access Lewton Dam by Lewton
    Road. Prior to 1943, the Fredlund School was located off Lewton Road and,
    according to LeFebre, Lewton Road provided the only access to the school. In 1943,
    the school was moved to Section 16.
    [¶6.]        LeFebre also summarized the work historically done by the Township
    on Lewton Road. LeFebre referred to Township meeting minutes from 1927, which
    indicated that O.F. Dragoo had made a motion to have Mr. Lewton repair the bridge
    near the Fredlund School and by Lewton Dam. The motion was seconded by Mr.
    Lewton, who was also on the Township board at the time. The Township paid for
    the repairs. LeFebre further testified that in 1958, Mrs. Lewton wrote to the
    Township and requested that the Township “grade and fix up the mile of road
    between my mailbox and the dam.” The letter was addressed to LeFebre’s father,
    who was the Township Board Supervisor at the time. LeFebre explained that Mrs.
    Lewton’s mailbox was located on Highway 75. On the back of Mrs. Lewton’s letter
    were notations indicating the expected cost of the project: $400 for grading and $300
    for graveling. LeFebre also referred to certain haul tickets that he stated
    represented various loads of gravel paid for by the Township including gravel for
    Lewton Road.
    -3-
    #27278
    [¶7.]        In 1972, the South Dakota Game Fish & Parks paid for the Township
    to repair the bridge at Lewton Dam. LeFebre testified that he used a tractor dozer
    to remove the old bridge and install new culverts. LeFebre next referred to the
    1989 Township meeting minutes, which reflected a decision to replace the cattle
    guard on Lewton Road in Section 20. At the time the cattle guard was replaced,
    Gordon Dragoo owned Section 20. Dragoo was also a Township Chairman and
    authorized the Township expenditure. At the time of trial, the cattle guard was still
    functional and in the same location within Section 20.
    [¶8.]        In 2001, Gordon and Medelle Dragoo sold Section 20 to Roxie Niemi
    and her former husband Wade Chapman by contract for deed, which contract was
    assigned to the M.L. Dragoo Revocable Trust after Gordon died in 2002. Wade
    testified at the trial that he has lived in the Township since 1987. In 2004, Wade
    requested the Township improve the road from Highway 75 to his and Roxie’s
    residence. At the time of the request, Wade was the Township Chairman. Wade
    testified that although routes other than Lewton Road were considered, the
    Township decided to “build up” Lewton Road from Highway 75 to the driveway and
    then construct an access to his residence. Wade described this portion of Lewton
    Road as “[a] good travelable road.” He testified that in his opinion Lewton Road is a
    Township road open to the public.
    [¶9.]        LeFebre confirmed that the Township paid for the construction of
    Lewton Road from Highway 75 to Wade and Roxie’s residence. LeFebre further
    testified that it was common for the Township to maintain and improve Township
    roads when requested to do so by Township residents and not maintain roads when
    -4-
    #27278
    it was unnecessary. LeFebre explained that in 2005, the Township declared Lewton
    Road a “no maintenance road” from Wade and Roxie’s driveway to Lewton Place
    because nobody was living in the Lewton residence at the time.
    [¶10.]        In 2007, Wade and Roxie divorced. Roxie testified that she received
    Wade’s right, title, and interest in the contract for deed for the purchase of Section
    20. Although she and her current husband David Niemi live in Buffalo, South
    Dakota, Roxie’s daughter Tanya and son-in-law Jon currently live in the residence
    within Section 20. Roxie testified that her concern regarding the road began when
    her son-in-law Jon informed her that he had spoken with Steve Hedstrom out on
    Lewton Road. Hedstrom was attempting to move the old Lewton house off the
    original Lewton Place by bringing it up Lewton Road through the Niemis’ property
    in Section 20. Roxie explained that she was concerned that Hedstrom would
    damage her land because her “land is highly erodable [sic], it’s mostly sand[.]” She
    testified that anyone desiring to use the road traversing her property would need
    her permission. Hedstrom did not obtain permission and, according to Roxie, had in
    fact told her that the road was a Township road. Roxie testified that she contacted
    local State’s Attorney Shane Penfield and later sent a letter to Jerry Reisenauer, an
    adjacent landowner, to advise him that he must obtain her permission before
    traveling on the road in Section 20. Reisenauer testified that both prior to and after
    receiving the letter from Roxie, he continued to use Lewton Road without asking for
    permission.
    [¶11.]        Roxie admitted that the Township constructed an access road to her
    residence when she was married to Wade. However, she denied any involvement in
    -5-
    #27278
    the Township’s decision to “build up” the road from Highway 75 to her driveway in
    2004. She insisted that after she became the owner of the land, she maintained the
    road, repaired potholes, hired a grader, and plowed snow. During cross-
    examination, however, Roxie admitted that the Township does not pay for snow
    removal for any resident. She also admitted that in 2004 she was told that Lewton
    Road is a Township road. Roxie submitted numerous pictures in support of her
    testimony about the condition of the road from Highway 75 to where it ends within
    Section 20. According to Roxie, the road after her driveway is mere pasture road.
    [¶12.]       Reisenauer owns land in Section 19, which is adjacent to the Niemis’
    land. He intervened in the suit to obtain a declaratory judgment that Lewton Road
    is a public road or that he be granted an easement by prescription. At trial, he
    claimed that the only access to his property in Section 19 is Lewton Road from
    Highway 75. He testified that Lewton Dam is located on his property and that the
    State of South Dakota has an easement for Lewton Dam. He relayed that people
    use the dam for fishing and that the dam is accessed by Lewton Road. He further
    testified that he has seen many landowners and leaseholders travel on Lewton Road
    to haul cattle in and out every year. According to Reisenauer, Lewton Road is a
    public road. Reisenauer submitted pictures, which he claimed accurately depict the
    condition of Lewton Road leading up to and after the Niemis’ driveway. In
    Reisenauer’s opinion, it is apparent from the pictures that the road composition
    beyond the Niemis’ driveway is not a pasture road. He emphasized that the road is
    slightly elevated, there are depressions on each side of the road, and some pictures
    show gravel that had been previously placed on the road.
    -6-
    #27278
    [¶13.]       Steve Hedstrom also testified. He was born in 1960 and is a lifelong
    resident of the Township, excluding the four years he spent in college. He is also
    the treasurer for the Township Board. Hedstrom testified that he has been on
    Lewton Road several times—a couple times as a child when he traveled to Lewton
    Dam to fish, and several times as an adult when he traveled to Lewton Place. One
    time in particular in 2011, Hedstrom was traveling to Lewton Place and met Jon
    (Roxie’s son-in-law) on the road. Hedstrom stated that Jon told him that the road is
    private. Hedstrom testified that he informed both Jon and Roxie that Lewton Road
    is a Township road. He also recalled the time he sold a cattle guard to the
    Township for installation on Lewton Road within Section 20. According to
    Hedstrom, Lewton Road is a Township road.
    [¶14.]       As the treasurer for the Township Board, Hedstrom also testified that
    he had a duty to record every Township expense and income. According to
    Hedstrom, in 2007, 2009, and 2011, the Township paid Fink Dirtwork for hauling
    and spreading gravel on Township roads including Lewton Road. He relayed that
    no Township resident reimbursed the Township for the gravel work done in 2007
    and 2009. However, in 2011, Pete Anderson, Dale Hedstrom, Colin LaMont, and
    Rod LeFebre paid the Township for gravel and Dale reimbursed the Township for a
    culvert. No reimbursements were received from Roxie or David Niemi for work
    done on Lewton Road.
    [¶15.]       Mike Cornelison, the land agent for the South Dakota Office of School
    and Public Lands, also testified. Cornelison stated that he has worked as the land
    agent for the Office of School and Public Lands since April 1979. He is responsible
    -7-
    #27278
    for surface land management for state-owned lands. In particular, he manages
    surface leases, agricultural and grazing leases, surface damage, oil and gas,
    easements, rights of way, state-owned dams, meandered lakes, and weed and pest
    control issues. Cornelison testified that the Office of School and Public Lands
    currently administers 870,000 acres of land statewide. He personally travels the
    lands for evaluation and monitoring. He testified that it is important for him to
    have access to state-owned school and public lands. He further explained that the
    State can lease the land at a higher rate if there is access to the land.
    [¶16.]       The Office of School and Public Lands does not own land touching
    Section 20. However, Cornelison explained that in order to access the land the
    State owns within the Township, he has used Lewton Road beginning at Highway
    75 and traversing Section 20. He conservatively estimated that he had traveled
    Lewton Road through Section 20 at least 12 times. He further testified that he had
    never been told by anyone that he could not use Lewton Road.
    [¶17.]       Cornelison testified regarding an aerial photo taken in 1961 of the land
    comprising Section 20. According to Cornelison, Lewton Road is plainly visible on
    the aerial map starting at Highway 75 and ending at the Lewton Place. Cornelison
    also described a second aerial photo taken in 1974. He testified that the photo
    depicts the road in the same location and also shows Lewton Dam. Cornelison
    indicated that the State has an easement for a 12-foot right of way for public use
    around the lake and that in his experience it is important that the public have
    access to that easement.
    -8-
    #27278
    [¶18.]       Cornelison testified that the appearance of Lewton Road has changed
    since he first drove on it in 1980. However, according to Cornelison, the “part to the
    west hasn’t changed, other than it’s a little more grazed[.]” He explained that there
    is a different composition between a pasture road and an improved road. “[P]asture
    roads are just running on top of the native grasses or the native situation, and then
    improvements come in all kinds of different levels, but, you know, they come with
    grading, come with ditching, they come with surfacing, addition of surface
    materials.” Cornelison submitted that in his opinion Lewton Road is an improved
    road.
    [¶19.]       At the conclusion of the trial, the court took the matter under
    advisement. On July 3, 2014, the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions
    of law. On August 11, 2014, the court issued a declaratory judgment in favor of
    Fredlund Township, Jerry Reisenauer, Riata Hills LLC, and the South Dakota
    Office of School and Public Lands (the Defendants).
    [¶20.]       The court entered 96 factual findings outlining the evidence presented
    at trial. It found that “[t]he Township has historically maintained the Township
    roads, including the Lewton Road, on an as-needed basis.” The court noted that,
    “[i]n addition to routine maintenance, Township records show that the Township
    Board has approved certain extraordinary expenses for improving and maintaining
    the Lewton Road over many decades.” Further, “Lewton Road, from Highway 75 to
    Lewton Place, has been continuously worked and maintained by the Township since
    at least 1927. The road has been graded, built up with ditches on the side and
    graveled by the Township.”
    -9-
    #27278
    [¶21.]       In the 1950s, the Dragoos (the Niemis’ predecessor in interest)
    authorized the Township to perform work on the road. The court found that the
    Dragoos’ actions demonstrated an “intent to dedicate Lewton Road as a public
    Township road” and the Township’s acceptance was shown by its authorization of
    work on Lewton Road. Likewise, the court found that the Township accepted
    Lewton Road as a Township road when the Township paid for Jim LeFebre to
    demolish the bridge on Lewton Road at Lewton Dam.
    [¶22.]       The court noted that in 1989, Gordon Dragoo indicated his intent to
    dedicate Lewton Road as a public road when he allowed the Township to install a
    cattle guard on Lewton Road within Section 20 at the Township’s expense. Further,
    the court found that the Township accepted the dedication by installing the cattle
    guard.
    [¶23.]       In reference to Roxie and Wade’s acts, the court found that they
    expressed an intent to dedicate Lewton Road in 2004 when they requested the
    Township build up Lewton Road from Highway 75 to their home. The court found
    that the Township’s decision to improve the road was evidence of the Township’s
    acceptance of the road as a public road. In 2007 and 2009, the Township paid for
    loads of gravel to Roxie Niemi’s driveway, which constituted her acquiescence in the
    Township’s maintenance of the road and the Township’s continued acceptance of the
    road as a public road.
    [¶24.]       Accordingly, the court found that the Township met its burden of proof
    by establishing that the landowners surrounding Lewton Road had impliedly
    dedicated Lewton Road as a public road and that the Township had accepted the
    -10-
    #27278
    dedication. Furthermore, the court found that the Township has taken no action to
    vacate Lewton Road. Although it declared a portion of Lewton Road a no
    maintenance road in 2005, it “made this declaration because no one was living in
    the former Lewton residence in Section 31.” According to the court, “The Township
    has agreed to improve and maintain the full length of Lewton Road if a residence is
    placed or built at Lewton Place.” The court also found that the public’s use of
    Lewton Road from Highway 75 to Lewton Place has been continuous and
    unmolested for more than twenty years.
    [¶25.]       The court also held that the Defendants “have proven by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the requirements of SDCL 31-3-1 have been
    satisfied by Fredlund Township and the Lewton Road has been used, worked, and
    kept in repair as a public highway continuously for over twenty years and the
    Lewton Road has been legally located and dedicated to the public.” In the
    alternative, the court ruled that the State has “established the elements of a public
    prescriptive easement on Lewton Road across Section 20 by clear and convincing
    evidence[,]” and that Riata Hills, the State, and Reisenauer “have established a
    prescriptive easement for their use of Lewton Road from Highway 75 to the Lewton
    Place by clear and convincing evidence.”
    [¶26.]       The Niemis appeal asserting four issues for our review. First, the
    Niemis claim that the circuit court erred when it held that the disputed roadway in
    Section 20 is a public road by operation of an implied common-law dedication.
    Second, they assert that the court erred when it ruled that the Defendants satisfied
    the requirements of a statutory dedication to the public under SDCL 31-3-1. In
    -11-
    #27278
    their third issue, the Niemis contend the circuit court erred when it granted the
    State a public prescriptive easement based on its finding that the State used
    Lewton Road in an open, continued, and unmolested manner for at least twenty
    years and that the use was hostile and adverse to the owner. Lastly, the Niemis
    claim the court erred as a matter of law when it alternatively granted the State,
    Riata Hills, and Reisenauer a private prescriptive easement for the use of Lewton
    Road from Highway 75 to Lewton Place.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [¶27.]       We review a court’s declaratory judgment rulings in the same manner
    as any “other orders, judgments, and decrees.” SDCL 21-24-13. We, therefore,
    review the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error. “Clear error is shown only
    when, after review of all the evidence, ‘we are left with a definite and firm
    conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Rabenberg v. Rigney, 
    1999 S.D. 71
    , ¶ 4,
    
    597 N.W.2d 424
    , 425 (quoting Cleveland v. Tinaglia, 
    1998 S.D. 91
    , ¶ 16, 
    582 N.W.2d 720
    , 724). We, however, reach our “legal conclusions independent from the
    conclusions reached by the [circuit] court.” City of Rapid City v. Anderson, 
    2000 S.D. 77
    , ¶ 6, 
    612 N.W.2d 289
    , 291 (quoting Agar Sch. Dist. v. McGee, 
    1997 S.D. 31
    ,
    ¶ 10, 
    561 N.W.2d 318
    , 321) (internal quotation mark omitted).
    ANALYSIS
    [¶28.]       The Niemis submit that “there has been no showing or determination
    by clear and convincing evidence or otherwise” that the Niemis or their predecessors
    in interest have impliedly dedicated Lewton Road as a public road. They allege that
    inconsistent and sporadic maintenance by the Township does not establish an
    -12-
    #27278
    intent to dedicate the road or an acceptance of the dedication by the Township. The
    Niemis further assert that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof
    to satisfy every element of an implied common-law dedication because the circuit
    court did not specifically find by clear and convincing evidence that the Township
    has accepted the dedication.
    [¶29.]       Before we address the merits of the case, we clarify the burden of
    proof. This Court has not previously addressed what standard of proof must be met
    to establish an implied common-law dedication. We find persuasive, however, this
    Court’s statement in Cuka v. Jamesville Hutterian Mutual Society, that the
    evidence “must be stronger, more intense or of a high degree than is required in
    ordinary litigation” when “the objective of the litigant is to establish an interest in
    land that is inconsistent with the record title[.]” See 
    294 N.W.2d 419
    , 422 (S.D.
    1980) (quoting Lenker v Musilek, 
    75 S.D. 60
    , 62, 
    59 N.W.2d 417
    , 418 (1953)). As one
    court remarked, “[d]edication is an exceptional and peculiar mode of passing title to
    an interest in land[.]” Metcalf v. Black Dog Realty, LLC, 
    684 S.E.2d 709
    , 718 (N.C.
    Ct. App. 2009) (quoting State Highway Comm’n v. Thornton, 
    156 S.E.2d 248
    , 253
    (N.C. 1967)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Therefore, we adopt the clear and
    convincing standard as the burden of proof. See McAllister v. Sanders, 
    937 N.E.2d 378
    , 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Merritt v. Peet, 
    24 N.W.2d 757
    (Iowa 1946); Wagner v.
    Crossland Constr. Co., Inc., 
    840 N.W.2d 81
    , 86 (N.D. 2013); Coley v. Di Sorbo, No.
    E2012-01347-COA-R3-CV, 
    2013 WL 2387719
    , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013)
    (unpublished); Draper City v. Estate of Bernardo, 
    888 P.2d 1097
    , 1099 (Utah 1995).
    -13-
    #27278
    [¶30.]         We turn, then, to analyze the court’s decision. The court first
    identified that it would apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the
    evidence in this case. However, the court also ruled that “[i]n the event it is found
    that an enhanced standard does apply to Implied Dedications, the Defendants/Third
    Party Plaintiffs have established that Lewton Road has been dedicated for the
    public use by clear and convincing evidence.” Because the court evaluated the
    evidence against the clear and convincing burden of proof, we examine whether the
    court erred when it ruled that the Defendants met their burden.
    [¶31.]         Dedication is a term of art. It is a “devotion of property to a public use
    by an unequivocal act of the owner” of the property and an acceptance of that
    dedication by the public. Tinaglia v. Ittzes, 
    257 N.W.2d 724
    , 728-29 (S.D. 1977). A
    dedication can arise by operation of common law or application of statute. 
    Id. at 729.
    Here, the court found a dedication both under the common law and under
    SDCL 31-3-1*. A dedication also can be either express or implied. “A dedication is
    express when the intent is manifested by oral or written words, and is implied when
    the intent must be gathered from the acts of the dedicator.” 
    Tinaglia, 257 N.W.2d at 729
    (quoting 11 Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations §33.03 (3d rev. ed.)).
    Here, it is undisputed that an express dedication did not occur. We, therefore,
    address the Niemis’ first issue: whether the circuit court erred when it held that the
    *        SDCL 31-3-1 provides in relevant part:
    Whenever any road shall have been used, worked, and kept in
    repair as a public highway continuously for twenty years, the
    same shall be deemed to have been legally located or dedicated
    to the public, and shall be and remain a public highway until
    changed or vacated in some manner provided by law.
    -14-
    #27278
    disputed roadway in Section 20 is a public road by operation of an implied common-
    law dedication.
    [¶32.]       “[W]hat amounts to a dedication by implication depends upon the facts
    of the particular case, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as a guide for the
    courts[.]” Evans v. City of Brookings, 
    41 S.D. 225
    , 
    170 N.W. 133
    , 134 (1918). A
    dedication “is implied where it arises by operation of law from the owner’s conduct
    and the facts and circumstances of the case.” 
    Tinaglia, 257 N.W.2d at 729
    (quoting
    11 McQuillin, supra ¶ 31, § 33.03). Dedication is premised on the doctrine of
    equitable estoppel. Larson v. Chicago Minn. & St. Paul R.R. Co., 
    19 S.D. 284
    , 
    103 N.W. 35
    , 37 (1905). See also Bergin v. Bistodeau, 
    2002 S.D. 53
    , ¶ 17, 
    645 N.W.2d 252
    , 256. This is because when an owner’s actions or conduct have been acted upon
    by the public and the Township, testimony that dedication was not intended “will
    not be permitted to prevail against unequivocal acts and conduct on the part of the
    owner inconsistent with such intent, and upon which the public had a right to rely.”
    Larson, 
    19 S.D. 284
    , 103 N.W. at 37 (citation omitted) (internal quotation mark
    omitted). However, we do not presume dedication; the intent of the dedicator must
    demonstrate a positive and unmistakable intent to permanently abandon property
    for specific public use. First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Revell, 
    68 S.D. 377
    , 385, 
    2 N.W.2d 674
    , 678 (1942). More recently, we have said that a “[d]edication is similar
    to that of a contractual agreement between two parties. There must be an
    unconditional offer by the grantor to create a public highway and there must be an
    unconditional acceptance by the appropriate public entity that it becomes one.”
    Selway Homeowners Ass’n v. Cummings, 
    2003 S.D. 11
    , ¶ 20, 
    657 N.W.2d 307
    , 313.
    -15-
    #27278
    [¶33.]       Contrary to the Niemis’ insistence, this is not a case of mere use of a
    route of travel. Contra Brusseau v. McBride, 
    245 N.W.2d 488
    , 490-91 (S.D. 1976)
    (example of mere use). Rather, the acts and conduct examined by the court “show a
    dedication,” which is “unequivocal and decisive, manifesting a positive and
    unmistakable intention, on the part of the owner, to permanently abandon his
    property to the specific public use.” See 
    id. at 491
    (quoting Cole v. Minnesota Loan
    & Trust Co., 
    117 N.W. 354
    , 359 (N.D. 1908)).
    [¶34.]       The original homesteader, O.F. Dragoo, requested or acquiesced in the
    Township’s maintenance of Lewton Road. Edgar Dragoo similarly acquiesced.
    Gordon Dragoo allowed the Township to pay for and install a cattle guard on
    Lewton Road within Section 20. Wade Chapman, while married to Roxie (Niemi),
    requested that the Township construct a road to their trailer site and build up
    Lewton Road to their driveway. After Roxie became the record owner, she
    acquiesced in the Township’s maintenance of Lewton Road in 2007 and 2009. See,
    e.g., Evans, 
    41 S.D. 225
    , 170 N.W. at 134 (work paid for by the city with the
    knowledge of the owner is evidence of acquiescence). Moreover, Roxie’s present
    position that she never intended for that portion of Lewton Road beyond her
    residence to be open to the public cannot prevail against her unequivocal actions
    and conduct upon which the public did and had a right to rely. See Larson, 
    19 S.D. 284
    , 103 N.W. at 37; Evans, 
    41 S.D. 225
    , 170 N.W. at 134.
    [¶35.]       Thus, based on our review of the record, the evidence supports the
    circuit court’s findings and conclusions that the actions of the owners of Section 20
    expressed an intent to dedicate Lewton Road as a public road. Further, from our
    -16-
    #27278
    review of the evidence, the court did not err when it concluded that the Township
    accepted the dedication. It is true the circuit court did not use the words “by clear
    and convincing evidence” in regard to the Township’s acceptance, but the evidence
    that the Township accepted the dedication “is so clear, direct and weighty and
    convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without
    hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” See Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 
    81 S.D. 324
    , 329, 
    134 N.W.2d 777
    , 780 (1965) (citation omitted) (internal quotation
    mark omitted) (defining clear and convincing).
    [¶36.]       The Township, since at least 1927, has maintained Lewton Road at the
    request of the landowners surrounding the road. It provided gravel, grading, and
    road construction. It installed a cattle guard and a culvert. We recognize that the
    maintenance has not been routine or consistent, but the evidence established that
    the Township maintains Township roads when a resident requests maintenance.
    See, e.g., Smith v. Sponheim, 
    399 N.W.2d 899
    , 905 (S.D. 1987) (public entity’s
    improvements and maintenance can indicate acceptance). In fact, because no one
    lived at Lewton Place, the Township declared Lewton Road from Roxie’s driveway to
    Lewton Place as a “no maintenance road” in 2005. Such declaration also
    demonstrates that the Township had accepted Lewton Road as a Township road.
    [¶37.]       The evidence also established that the public has used Lewton Road
    for decades, including the portion traversing Section 20, to access Lewton Dam,
    Fredlund School, and adjacent properties. According to the Township residents and
    adjacent landowners who testified, they had never been informed that they could
    not use Lewton Road until Roxie informed Steve Hedstrom in 2011 that he needed
    -17-
    #27278
    her permission to use the road, which he ignored. Furthermore, the adjacent
    landowners and several members of the Township Board of Supervisors testified
    that they believed Lewton Road is a Township road open to the public.
    [¶38.]       Because the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous,
    it did not err when it ruled that the entire length of the disputed roadway in Section
    20 is a public road by operation of an implied common-law dedication. Further,
    because Lewton Road is a Township road, we need not reach the Niemis’ remaining
    issues. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
    [¶39.]       GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, SEVERSON, and
    WILBUR, Justices, concur.
    -18-