When must a Utah judge recuse for prior involvement with property? Lunt v. Lance Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about judicial disqualification and prescriptive easements in Lunt v. Lance, providing guidance on when judges must recuse themselves and how easements can be partially abandoned.

Background and Facts

Garth Lunt sued Harold and Diane Lance claiming rights to use a 34-foot-wide strip of land called “the Lane” located within the Lances’ property boundaries. At trial, Judge Pullan disclosed that he had briefly been involved with a zoning matter related to the Lunt property nearly seven years earlier while serving as acting chair of the Heber City Planning Commission. The planning commission had unanimously approved a zoning change for part of the Lunt property in less than ten minutes. Both parties waived any objection to Judge Pullan continuing with the case. After trial, Judge Pullan ruled that Lunt had established a prescriptive easement but rejected his boundary by acquiescence claim. Four months later, the Lances moved to disqualify Judge Pullan and requested a new trial.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: (1) whether Judge Pullan should have recused himself based on his prior involvement with the property, (2) whether clear and convincing evidence supported the existence of a prescriptive easement, and (3) whether the trial court properly applied the doctrine of abandonment to limit the easement’s scope.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding judicial disqualification, the court held that Judge Pullan’s brief involvement in an unrelated zoning matter did not provide him with “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts” requiring recusal under Canon 3(E)(1)(a). The court emphasized that parties had waived disqualification after full disclosure, and judges are not required to have minds that are “clean slates.” On the prescriptive easement, the court found sufficient evidence of open, notorious, adverse, and continuous use for more than 20 years. The court also upheld the trial court’s partial abandonment ruling, finding that Lunt’s 20-plus years of non-use of portions of the Lane, coupled with acquiescence to the Lances’ adverse use, constituted clear and convincing evidence of intent to abandon those portions.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners on preservation of error regarding judicial conflicts. The Lances’ failure to object at trial despite full disclosure severely weakened their position. The case also demonstrates how prescriptive easements can be subject to partial abandonment through extended non-use and acquiescence. For property disputes, practitioners should carefully document historical use patterns and be prepared to address potential scope limitations based on changed use over time.