Roberts v. Russell
2012 UT App 241
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Roberts own a rural Sanpete County property; title held as joint tenancy with husband Kent Roberts until his death in 2010.
- Purkeys hold an access easement over the Roberts’ northern 32 feet; Plat Map designates this strip as an Access Easement for signatories and public safety.
- Fence by Dr. Russell sits along the northern boundary; a survey later shows Russell’s fence encroached up to 14.5 feet and the road diverged from the plat.
- In 2007, Roberts sued to resolve road-use disputes and to quiet title per the Survey; Russell answered and later failed to respond to a summary-judgment motion.
- Trial court initially found a waiver by Mr. Roberts regarding the westward encroachment; post-trial, Roberts sought to amend and assert broader claims.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reverses, holding no waiver and remanding for quiet title per Survey, trespass remedy, and potential attorney-fee reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a waiver of quiet-title and trespass claims against Russell? | Roberts did not intend to relinquish claims; waiver not supported by trial testimony. | Mr. Roberts’ trial responses evidenced an intent to waive claims. | Waiver not established; remand for proper resolution. |
| Did the trial court properly quiet title to the north boundary per the Survey? | Survey proves Roberts own the boundaries; title should be quieted accordingly. | No contrary argument; no acquiescence boundary found. | Roberts entitled to quiet title per Survey boundaries. |
| Did Russell trespass on the Roberts’ property by maintaining the fence? | Fence encroached beyond property line; trespass occurred and remedy sought. | Fence within easement/right of way; no trespass or improper use. | Fence constitutes trespass; remand for appropriate remedy. |
| Should attorney fees be awarded to Roberts, given the outcome? | Prevailing-party status under court order shifting fees should favor Roberts. | No prevailing party; standard rule denies fees absent statute/contract. | Prevailing-party outcome unsettled; remand to reconsider fees consistent with decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 196 P.3d 588 (Utah 2008) (waiver requires explicit relinquishment of a known right)
- Soter’s, Inc. v. Deseret Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 857 P.2d 935 (Utah 1993) (waiver may be proven by totality of circumstances)
- Gillmor v. Blue Ledge Corp., 217 P.3d 723 (Utah 2009) (prima facie title after undisputed boundary evidence)
- Carter v. Done, 276 P.3d 1127 (Utah 2012) (trespass standard involving entry onto land)
- Wykoff v. Barton, 646 P.2d 756 (Utah 1982) (easement scope and incidental uses)
- Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008) (easement rights and reasonableness of uses)
- Carrier v. Lindquist, 37 P.3d 1112 (Utah 2001) (injunctive relief balancing equities)
- Papanikolas Bros. Enters., LC v. Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc., 163 P.3d 728 (Utah 2007) (injunction scope and encroachment relief)