Can Utah courts enforce easements without precise location descriptions? Evans v. Board of County Commissioners of Utah County Explained

In Evans v. Board of County Commissioners of Utah County, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an express easement created by deed reservation remains enforceable when the deed does not specify the precise location of the easement. The court’s decision provides important guidance for practitioners drafting easement language and litigating easement disputes.

Background and Facts

In 1983, the R.L. Bird Company quit-claimed property to Utah County, reserving “the public use and right-of way over and into Pine Street from the State Highway and a 56′ wide right-of-way over and across” a strip of land to provide access to Bird’s remaining property. Bird later conveyed this remaining property, including the easement rights, to Jamie and Terry Evans. When Evans sought to enforce the easement, Utah County moved for summary judgment, arguing the easement was invalid due to vagueness, lack of physical improvements, and statute of frauds violations.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether the easement language violated the statute of frauds; (2) whether the deed language was too vague to create a cognizable easement; and (3) whether the absence of a fixed location rendered the reservation invalid. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the County on all three grounds.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, applying a correctness standard to legal conclusions while according the trial court discretion when applying legal standards to facts concerning easement existence. The court held that the deed language satisfied the statute of frauds because it clearly showed Bird’s intent to reserve an easement, identified both the dominant and servient estates, and established the easement’s purpose. Regarding vagueness, the court emphasized that deed construction should effectuate the parties’ intentions and that easements need only “encumber a specific servient estate” without requiring precise location details.

Significantly, the court recognized the concept of a “floating” or “roving” easement whose location may be fixed by agreement of the parties, acquiescent use, or other factors outlined in Salt Lake City v. J.B. & R.E. Walker. The absence of physical improvements or historical use does not invalidate an otherwise valid floating easement.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts will enforce express easements when the deed contains sufficient detail to identify the dominant estate, servient estate, and easement purpose, even without precise location descriptions. Practitioners should focus on clearly articulating these essential elements rather than obsessing over exact boundaries. The ruling also reinforces that accepting and recording a deed with easement language constitutes agreement to the easement terms, preventing later claims of invalidity based on lack of assent.