Harrison v. Spah Family LTD, 466 P.3d 107

Background

Willow Basin subdivision: Manuel Torres (predecessor to the Hollands) cut an access road across land later owned by the Harrisons without the record owner's prior authorization.
On August 9, 1996 the Hollands acquired the dominant parcel and began using that road for access; they continued using it for roughly twenty years.
In 2008 the Harrisons purchased the servient parcel and later altered/widened the road; disputes culminated in June–September 2016 when Mr. Harrison blocked access with a bulldozer and police were called.
The Hollands sought and the district court granted partial summary judgment that a prescriptive easement had arisen; a subsequent trial determined the easement’s scope and a judgment was entered on a jury verdict based substantially on a 2016 survey.
On appeal the Harrisons challenged (1) the summary judgment ruling that continuity/adverseness existed for the 20‑year period, (2) that the use was not permissive, (3) a jury instruction on scope that failed to limit the easement to historical use, and (4) admissibility rulings on expert testimony; the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed on the jury instruction, and remanded for a new trial on scope.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Harrisons)	Defendant's Argument (Hollands)	Held
Whether the 20‑year continuous element was interrupted by the Harrisons' non‑acquiescence and police calls	The Harrisons argued their expressed non‑acquiescence and the June 2016 police contact interrupted continuity a few months before the 20‑year mark	The Hollands argued continuity is measured by the user's conduct and mental state; owner non‑acquiescence or unsuccessful attempts to stop use do not interrupt if the user remains adverse and continues using the way	Court held interruption requires either cessation of use or that the user submit to owner (accept permission); owner’s lack of acquiescence or unsuccessful efforts (police calls) did not interrupt the prescriptive period — summary judgment on continuity affirmed
Whether the use was permissive because original owner (Hawley) later acquiesced or gave permission for marketing	Harrisons relied on Hawley’s declaration that she permitted use for marketing to show initial permissive use, rebutting presumption of adverseness	Hollands showed Torres built/used the road without Hawley’s knowledge or authorization and there is no evidence Torres/Hollands accepted any later permission	Court held initial use was adverse; Hawley’s post‑hoc permission (and limited permission for marketing only) did not rebut presumption of adverseness — summary judgment on adverseness affirmed
Whether the jury instruction on scope was legally correct	Harrisons argued the jury should have been instructed that scope is measured and limited by the historical use during the prescriptive period	Hollands relied on instruction that asked the jury to determine what width was "necessary" to access property and to consider historical use among other facts	Court held the instruction was erroneous and prejudicial: it treated historical use as merely a factor instead of the defining limit on scope; remanded for new trial with correct instruction
Admissibility of experts: (a) admission of Hollands’ surveyor (Blake) and (b) exclusion of Harrisons’ rebuttal (Bunker)	Harrisons argued Blake’s survey was unreliable for scope because it measured the 2016 road and did not reconstruct historical dimensions; they argued Bunker should have been allowed to rebut Blake	Hollands argued Blake properly testified about 2016 physical dimensions (relevant upper bound) and Bunker’s intended testimony risked usurping the jury/judge by offering legal conclusions about prescriptive scope	Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion: Blake’s testimony was relevant and reliably applied to facts (low Rule 401 bar); exclusion of Bunker was proper because his planned testimony risked giving legal conclusions and usurping the court’s instruction role

Key Cases Cited

Judd v. Bowen, 428 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2018) (reiterating prescriptive easement elements: open, continuous, adverse, 20 years)
Crane v. Crane, 683 P.2d 1062 (Utah 1984) (landowner’s offer of permission or physical barriers do not interrupt prescriptive use if user remains adverse and continues using)
Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305 (Utah 1998) (presumption that open, continuous 20‑year use is adverse; owner bears burden to show initial permission)
Lunt v. Kitchens, 260 P.2d 535 (Utah 1953) (user’s subjective belief that use was permissive defeats prescriptive claim)
Richards v. Pines Ranch, 559 P.2d 948 (Utah 1977) (continuous use characterized as use "whenever they desired and as a right")
Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, 174 P.2d 148 (Utah 1946) (scope of prescriptive easement limited by historical use; form may depend on reasonable necessity)
Whitesides v. Green, 44 P. 1032 (Utah 1896) (easement use must be reasonable and as little burdensome to servient estate as nature and purpose permit)