Utah Supreme Court

When does the statute of limitations begin for trespass claims in Utah? Breiggar Properties v. H.E. Davis & Sons Explained

2002 UT 53
No. 20000882
June 7, 2002
Affirmed

Summary

Davis dumped debris on Breiggar’s property while doing road work by December 1996. Breiggar discovered the debris in September 1997 and filed suit in March 2000. The trial court granted summary judgment for Davis, finding the claims time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In Breiggar Properties v. H.E. Davis & Sons, Davis contracted with UDOT to perform slope work and rock removal on State Road 92. During this work, Davis dumped rocks, soil, and debris on Breiggar’s property without permission, completing the work by December 10, 1996. Breiggar discovered the debris in September 1997, attempted to negotiate removal, and ultimately filed suit in March 2000 for trespass, continuing trespass, and negligence.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Breiggar’s complaint was barred by Utah’s three-year statute of limitations under section 78-12-26(1). The court needed to determine when the limitations period began to run and whether the trespass should be characterized as permanent or continuing. Breiggar argued for adopting a “reasonable abatability” test and applying the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court clarified that the distinction between permanent and continuing trespass focuses solely on the act constituting the trespass, not the resulting harm. The court rejected the “reasonable abatability” test, explaining that once an act of trespass occurs, the statute of limitations begins to run immediately. A trespass is “continuing” only when multiple acts of trespass continue to occur, not when the effects of a completed trespass persist. Since Davis’s dumping was completed by December 1996, the three-year limitations period began then, making Breiggar’s March 2000 complaint untimely.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah practitioners must file trespass claims within three years of when the trespassing act occurred, regardless of when the plaintiff discovers the trespass or whether ongoing harm could be reasonably remedied. The ruling protects defendants from stale claims while requiring plaintiffs to act diligently to protect their interests. Attorneys should advise clients to conduct regular property inspections and file claims promptly upon discovering any unauthorized use of their property.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Breiggar Properties v. H.E. Davis & Sons

Citation

2002 UT 53

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20000882

Date Decided

June 7, 2002

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

The statute of limitations for trespass begins to run from the date of the trespassing act, not from when ongoing harm continues or could be reasonably abated.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law and whether disputed issues of material fact exist in summary judgment

Practice Tip

File trespass claims within three years of when the trespassing act occurred, regardless of when you discover the trespass or whether ongoing harm could be abated.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    DHS v. Hughes

    March 27, 2007

    The federal Hatch Act does not preempt state law, allowing state agencies to voluntarily comply with the Act and make independent personnel decisions based on perceived violations.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Due Process
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    L.R. and C.R. v. State of Utah

    October 22, 1998

    Utah Code Ann. 78-3a-311(3)(b)(ii), which creates a presumption against providing reunification services to mentally disabled parents, does not violate equal protection because mental disability is not a suspect classification and parents have no fundamental right to reunification services.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • DCFS and Child Welfare
    • |
    • Termination of Parental Rights
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.