Does subdivision of dominant property extinguish prescriptive easements in Utah? Alvey Development Corp. v. Van Mackelprang Explained

In Alvey Development Corp. v. Van Mackelprang, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether prescriptive easements survive when the dominant property is subdivided, establishing an important rule that places Utah in the minority of jurisdictions on this issue.

Background and Facts

The case involved a dispute over access rights across Lot 32, owned by the Mackelprangs. A prescriptive easement had been established through use of an access road dating back to the 1930s, benefiting the northern property. In 1987, Garkane Power sold part of the northern property to Alvey Development, but retained the portion that abutted Lot 32. This meant Alvey’s newly acquired property no longer directly adjoined the servient property containing the easement. In 1997, Garkane conveyed to Alvey a half-interest in the abutting property. Alvey also claimed rights under a reservation easement from a 1977 deed, though the original grantor never owned the benefited property.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether a prescriptive easement survives when the dominant tenement is subdivided and the resulting parcel does not abut the servient tenement, and (2) whether a reservation clause can create a valid easement when the grantor has no ownership interest in the purported dominant estate.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Following precedent from Wood v. Ashby, the court established that Utah follows a minority rule requiring four elements for an appurtenant prescriptive easement to survive subdivision: (1) no additional easement can be created, (2) no increased burden on the servient estate, (3) the easement must be reasonably necessary, and (4) the newly created parcel must “abut on the way.” Since Alvey’s 1987 property did not abut Lot 32, the easement was extinguished. The court found no Utah law allowing revival of an extinguished prescriptive easement, even after Alvey later acquired abutting property. Regarding the reservation easement, the court affirmed summary judgment, finding it created neither an appurtenant easement (lacking property to attach to) nor an easement in gross (lacking commercial or personal use).

Practice Implications

This decision highlights Utah’s strict approach to easement preservation following property subdivision. Unlike most jurisdictions, Utah requires direct abutment between dominant and servient properties. Practitioners should carefully examine property boundaries when advising clients about easement rights and warn that subdivision may extinguish valuable access rights if the resulting parcels lose direct contact with the servient property.