Peterson v. Pierce
440 P.3d 833
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Adjacent parcels in Millard County previously owned by the Hatton family were split into the Pierce Parcel (Parcels 1 & 2) and the Peterson Parcel; a historic "Two Rutted Lane" ran along the northern boundary of the Pierce Parcel and was used as a shared driveway for decades.
- Deeds conveying Parcels 1 and 2 to the Pierces included metes-and-bounds descriptions and an express "Easement for a joint driveway," describing a seven-foot strip north of the Pierces’ property; those deeds also used "subject to" language.
- The district court found the parties did not know the precise surveyed boundary until a 1997 survey and that the seven-foot described strip was intended for frontage (to enable subdivision), not as the joint driveway; the parties instead used and maintained the Two Rutted Lane as the joint driveway.
- In 2013 the Pierces erected a fence blocking Peterson’s access via the Two Rutted Lane; Peterson sued claiming (among other things) deed reformation for mutual mistake and an easement to use the lane.
- The district court concluded there was mutual mistake, reformed the deeds to identify the Two Rutted Lane as the joint driveway (granting Peterson a ten-foot easement centered on the lane), and awarded Peterson attorney fees related to a lis pendens dispute; the court omitted explicit reformation language recognizing the seven-foot frontage easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peterson) | Defendant's Argument (Pierce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/statute of limitations | Suit filed promptly after fence in 2013; statute starts when adverse action blocks use | Claims of mistake discovered by 1997 survey; §78B-2-305 three-year bar applies | Court: limitations did not run while Peterson and predecessors openly used lane; claim timely |
| Laches | No unreasonable delay—use was continuous until 2013 fence | Pierces relied on deed language and made improvements; equitable estoppel/laches should bar relief | Court: laches defense failed—no prejudice shown and delay was not unreasonable |
| Mutual mistake / reformation of deeds | Deed language mistakenly described the seven-foot strip as the joint driveway; parties intended separate frontage easement and reservation of the lane as joint driveway | Deed metes-and-bounds control; no mutual mistake about easement location/size | Court: mutual mistake proven; deeds to be reformed to identify Two Rutted Lane as joint driveway, but reformation must also expressly preserve seven-foot frontage easement (remanded to fix omission) |
| Attorney fees re: lis pendens | Entitled to fees under §78B-6-1304 because Peterson prevailed on lis pendens question | Award inappropriate or procedurally unfair | Court: fees properly awarded for work defending lis pendens from Sept 5, 2014 onward; Pierces waived objections by not contesting affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- RHN Corp. v. Veibell, 96 P.3d 935 (Utah 2004) (reformation of deed standards; mutual mistake and admissibility of extrinsic evidence)
- Insight Assets, Inc. v. Farias, 321 P.3d 1021 (Utah 2013) (elements of laches: lack of diligence and prejudice)
- Veysey v. Nelson, 397 P.3d 846 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standard for applying laches; mixed question of law and fact)
- Sandusky v. Sandusky, 417 P.3d 634 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (appellate review and burden to show clear error in factual findings)
- Wilkin v. O'Brien, 176 P. 853 (Utah 1918) (treatment of inconsistent findings and whether judgment can be sustained when intent is ascertainable)