548 P.3d 531
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- Paul Bywater owned property in Brigham City and historically accessed his land via an easement across the Taylors' and Golden Spike RV, LLC's properties.
- In 2012, Bywater conveyed part of his land to Brigham City for construction of 1100 West, a new road abutting his property.
- The easement Bywater used contained a provision that it would terminate once his property gained access to a public road.
- Litigation ensued after 1100 West was built, as the Taylors and Golden Spike claimed the new road extinguished Bywater's easement, but Brigham City did not grant him unconditional access.
- In 2022, the district court granted summary judgment for Bywater, finding he had an easement to access 1100 West, and Brigham City subsequently gave a permit for a curb cut, which Bywater built and has used.
- Brigham City appealed but did not seek a stay of the district court's decision, and the Taylors argued the appeal was moot due to the city's subsequent actions and inaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal was moot after Brigham City issued a curb cut permit and did not seek a stay | Bywater: Brigham City's failure to stay judgment and subsequent permit issuance made the case moot | Brigham City: Still retains regulatory authority over access, so case is not moot | Moot—Brigham City's inaction and actions mooted the appeal |
| Whether Bywater has easement/right to access 1100 West | Bywater: Entitled to access as abutting landowner; easement to 1100 West exists | Brigham City: Bywater must meet certain conditions, and status as abutting landowner does not create easement | Not addressed due to mootness |
| Whether court could consider mootness argument and affidavit | Bywater/Taylors: Mootness should be considered, Bywater joins mootness argument, affidavit is proper | Brigham City: Motion to strike Taylors' brief and mootness arguments | Yes, mootness properly considered, affidavit allowed |
| Whether the Taylors/Golden Spike could participate in the appeal | Taylors: Should be allowed, parties to underlying litigation | Brigham City: Not proper parties, failed to intervene timely | Court does not need to address due to mootness and party joinder |
Key Cases Cited
- In re adoption of L.O., 282 P.3d 977 (Utah 2012) (court may sua sponte address mootness; mootness is jurisdictional)
- Wasatch County v. Utility Facility Review Board, 437 P.3d 406 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (failure to seek a stay and subsequent construction can moot an appeal)
- Transportation Alliance Bank v. Int’l Confections Co., 423 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2017) (appeal mooted when party fails to obtain stay and subsequent events change circumstances)
- Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719 (Utah 1996) (failure to stay sale order mooted appeal upon sale completion)