Bell Canyon Acres Homeowners Ass'n v. McLelland, 443 P.3d 1212

Bell Canyon Acres is a residential community with recorded restrictive covenants and recorded plat maps dedicating bridle-path easements across lots.
Appellants sued four homeowners (of ~100) alleging their fences encroach on a 50-foot bridle-path easement and sought declaratory relief and enforcement of the covenants.
The district court agreed the covenants create a 50-foot easement and that the limitation period did not bar enforcement, but denied appellants’ summary judgment because appellants had not joined all other homeowners whose lots are subject to the easements (the “outsiders”).
The district court relied on Utah Declaratory Judgment Act § 78B-6-403(1), which requires joinder of all persons with interests that would be affected by a declaration.
Appellants appealed interlocutorily, asking whether § 403 requires joinder of the outsiders before they can obtain declaratory relief against the named homeowners.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah Code § 78B-6-403(1) requires joinder of all homeowners whose lots are subject to the same restrictive covenants/easements before a plaintiff can seek declaratory relief against specific homeowners	§ 403 does not require joining outsiders because appellants only seek a declaration affecting rights between appellants and the named defendants	§ 403 requires joinder because a declaration fixing the easement width against some lots would determine the easement scope for all lots traversed and thus affect outsiders' interests	Held: § 403 does not mandate joinder here — outsiders’ legal interests would not be affected by the requested declaration, and a declaration would not bind nonparties absent joinder or privity; reverse and remand.

Bryner v. Cardon Outreach, LLC, 428 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2018) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
Krejci v. City of Saratoga Springs, 322 P.3d 662 (Utah 2013) (due process principles limit effect of judgments on nonjoined outsiders)
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1971) (discusses preclusion and outsiders’ rights)
Press Publ’g, Ltd. v. Matol Botanical Int’l, Ltd., 37 P.3d 1121 (Utah 2001) (examples of privity and when claim/issue preclusion may apply)
Searle Bros. v. Searle, 588 P.2d 689 (Utah 1978) (definition of privity as representing the same legal right)
Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040 (Utah 2017) (legislative amendment to court rules requires express reference and clear intent)
In re Estate of Hannifin, 311 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2013) (legislature may preempt or displace common law)