Judd v. Bowen
397 P.3d 686
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two century-old cabins in Big Cottonwood Canyon share a narrow, one-lane circular driveway (the Driveway) located almost entirely on the Bowens’ land; the Judds historically used the Driveway for ingress/egress and for parking.
- Users of both cabins cooperated informally for decades; use patterns shifted after David Bowen became sole owner in 2006 and a 2008 refusal to move a parked Judd vehicle triggered conflict.
- The Judds sued (2011) claiming a prescriptive easement for access and parking; after a four-day trial the trial court awarded an easement for "reasonable access and parking."
- The trial court also ordered removal of a decorative rock border, restoration of a prior Bowen parking strip, and removal of "recently-grown" foliage; both parties sought enforcement and clarification, leading to further trial-court orders.
- On appeal the court affirmed a prescriptive easement for access but reversed the parking easement and vacated the orders restoring the walkway and removing decorative border; it limited foliage relief to trimming that prevents unreasonable interference with access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Judd) | Defendant's Argument (Bowen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Judds established a prescriptive easement for access | Historic, open, continuous, adverse use of the Driveway for ingress/egress for the 20-year period | Use was permissive/neighborly accommodation, not adverse | Affirmed: access easement granted (use was continuous, open/notorious, and adverse; presumption of adversity not rebutted) |
| Whether the Judds established a prescriptive easement to park on the Driveway | Historic parking "on or near" and in center of Driveway supports a parking easement | Parking easement would effectively exclude Bowen ownership rights; such a right is akin to adverse possession | Reversed: parking easement denied (parking right too akin to possession; inconsistent with prescriptive easement doctrine) |
| Whether the trial court exceeded scope in defining easement boundaries and remedies | Historic use supports broad parking and related restorative remedies (remove borders, restore walkway, cut foliage) | Orders exceeded historical necessity and imposed burdens beyond access easement | Mixed: access easement scope limited to historic access; orders restoring walkway and rock border vacated; foliage order narrowed to trimming that prevents unreasonable interference with access |
| Proper legal standard and burden allocation for prescriptive easement elements | Trial court applied correct clear-and-convincing standard and presumption of adversity after 20 years | Bowens argued trial court failed to apply critical limitations and misapplied permissive-use doctrine | Affirmed trial court applied correct law and resolved factual conflicts; Bowens failed to show findings insufficient to support legal conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Orton v. Carter, 970 P.2d 1254 (Utah 1998) (elements and 20-year period for prescriptive easement)
- Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305 (Utah 1998) (presumption of adversity after statutory period and owner’s burden to show permissive use)
- Nyman v. Anchor Dev., LLC, 73 P.3d 357 (Utah 2003) (limits of prescriptive easement where claimed use amounts to permanent exclusive occupancy)
- Crane v. Crane, 683 P.2d 1062 (Utah 1984) (continuity measured by nature of use and need; infrequent use may suffice)
- Richins v. Struhs, 412 P.2d 314 (Utah 1966) (prescriptive easement doctrine preserves long-established status quo)
- Zollinger v. Frank, 175 P.2d 714 (Utah 1946) (adversity standard and owner’s burden to prove permissive use)
- Lunt v. Lance, 186 P.3d 978 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (each prescriptive element must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; scope tied to historic use)
- Allred ex rel. Jensen v. Allred, 182 P.3d 337 (Utah 2008) (flexible nature of adverse possession possession/occupation requirement)
- North Union Canal Co. v. Newell, 550 P.2d 178 (Utah 1976) (balancing easement holder’s use against fee owner’s right to highest possible use)
- Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Salt Lake County Bd. of Equalization, 270 P.3d 441 (Utah 2012) (easement is a nonpossessory right to use)