409 P.3d 133
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Peterson owned Buckhorn Flats; a dirt road across it (Peterson Road) was the only vehicular access to a spur road serving four lots Hall later bought. Peterson installed a gate ~1996 and changed locks ~2008; Hall bought his lots 2010–2013 and was denied a key.
- Hall sued asserting several theories; the jury was submitted prescriptive easement, easement by estoppel, and public road. The jury found only for easement by estoppel; trial court entered judgment and awarded costs to Hall.
- Hall’s easement-by-estoppel theory relied largely on historical use by predecessors: Diversified Marketing allegedly sold parcels in the 1970s, a spur road exists, limited evidence of construction machinery, and sporadic vehicular/ATV use by various locals over decades.
- At trial Peterson moved for a directed verdict arguing insufficient evidence for easement by estoppel; the trial court denied the motion. Peterson appealed that denial.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the evidence sufficed to let a jury find the three elements of easement by estoppel (permission, foreseeability of reliance, and substantial change of position) and concluded the evidence was legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (Peterson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported an easement by estoppel | Predecessors (Diversified, Smith, Thomas, Gobel) used the Peterson Road to develop and sell lots; Peterson knew or acquiesced, so predecessors reasonably relied and substantially changed position | Evidence was too sparse and speculative to show permission, foreseeability, or reasonable reliance; silence does not create estoppel here | Reversed: evidence insufficient; directed verdict should have been granted for Peterson |
| Whether silence/implied permission could establish owner’s permission | Hall: pervasive historical use and construction allowed inference of implied permission | Peterson: no evidence he knew or acquiesced; silence alone here is not compelling enough to create permission | Held: silence insufficient given lack of pervasive, clear facts showing owner’s awareness or duty to speak |
| Whether reliance and substantial change were reasonably foreseeable | Hall: development activity and sales made reliance foreseeable | Peterson: no proof Diversified relied on the road, nor that reliance was foreseeable to Peterson | Held: insufficient proof of reasonable foreseeable reliance or substantial change based on owner’s conduct |
| Whether cumulative, sporadic use could create easement by estoppel | Hall: aggregate evidence of sporadic users, spur road, machinery sightings supports estoppel | Peterson: cumulative evidence is too meager and speculative to equitably divest landowner of rights | Held: cumulative sporadic use did not meet strict, clear standard required for equitable estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahmood v. Ross, 990 P.2d 933 (Utah 1999) (standard for directed verdict; jury may not speculate)
- Merino v. Albertsons, Inc., 975 P.2d 467 (Utah 1999) (reversing denial of directed verdict where evidence insufficient)
- Salt Lake City v. Gallegos, 347 P.3d 842 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (directed verdict review; jury speculation unacceptable)
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Big Ditch Irrigation Co., 258 P.3d 539 (Utah 2011) (elements of equitable estoppel)
- First Inv. Co. v. Andersen, 621 P.2d 683 (Utah 1980) (silence as basis for estoppel requires duty to speak or willful/culpable silence)
- McClung v. Ayers, 352 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App. 2011) (equitable estoppel to create servitude must be certain, precise, and clear)