Utah Court of Appeals
When does an open space agreement create an easement running with the land? Canyon Meadows v. Wasatch Co. Explained
Summary
The Association sued to establish title to disputed property under an open space agreement, arguing it created an easement that runs with the land binding subsequent purchasers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the developer, ruling the agreement did not create an easement running with the land as a matter of law.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in real estate law: when does an open space agreement create an easement that runs with the land, binding subsequent purchasers who were not original parties to the agreement?
Background and Facts
Canyon Meadows Home Owners Association and the original developers entered into an open space agreement with Wasatch County in 1980, modified in 1983. The agreement required developers to transfer open space to the Association and prohibited construction on designated areas “during the life of said development.” The agreement bound “developers and owners of said land, for themselves and for their successors, lenders and assigns.” After foreclosure proceedings, New Canyon Meadows acquired the property by quitclaim deed from the FDIC and argued it was not bound by the agreement.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the original parties intended to create an easement running with the land that would bind subsequent purchasers. Under Flying Diamond Oil Corp. v. Newton Sheep Co., a covenant runs with the land when: (1) it touches and concerns the land, (2) the parties intend it to run with the land, (3) there is privity of estate, and (4) the agreement is in writing. The trial court found the second element—intent—was not satisfied and granted summary judgment.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Association raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the original parties’ intent. The court noted that terms like “successors” and “assigns” have historically been used to create easements running with the land. More significantly, the agreement’s underlying purpose—creating permanent open space “for the life of said development”—suggested the parties intended an easement that would survive transfers. The court emphasized that allowing the agreement to be defeated by simple conveyance would undermine its fundamental purpose of ensuring lasting open space protection.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights the importance of clear drafting in easement agreements. While the absence of express “runs with the land” language does not defeat such intent as a matter of law, including this phrase would strengthen enforceability. The court also remanded for consideration of an ambiguous termination clause that could affect the entire agreement’s scope. Additionally, the court reinstated the County as a necessary party, emphasizing that entities with interests in litigation outcomes should remain named parties regardless of agreements to be bound by judgments.
Case Details
Case Name
Canyon Meadows v. Wasatch Co.
Citation
2001 UT App 414
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20000905-CA
Date Decided
December 28, 2001
Outcome
Reversed and Remanded
Holding
Whether an open space agreement creates an easement that runs with the land presents a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial when the agreement’s language and underlying purpose support competing plausible interpretations.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law; summary judgment reviewed for correctness with facts and inferences viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party
Practice Tip
When drafting easements intended to run with the land, include express language stating the easement ‘runs with the land’ and carefully consider termination clause language to avoid ambiguity about the scope of termination rights.
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
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.