Utah Court of Appeals
Does a creek shown on a plat map override metes and bounds descriptions? Clark v. Smay Explained
Summary
Paul Clark and the Smays disputed ownership of a ninety-foot strip of land between two subdivisions. The dispute arose when a 1967 survey relocated the Margarethe subdivision boundaries based on a creek shown on the original 1909 plat map, creating an overlap with the Maple City subdivision where Clark owned property. The trial court quieted title in Clark, ruling that the metes and bounds description controlled over the creek depiction.
Analysis
In property boundary disputes, the question often arises whether natural features depicted on plat maps can override written metes and bounds descriptions. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Clark v. Smay, providing important guidance for practitioners handling boundary disputes.
Background and Facts
The dispute centered on a ninety-foot strip of land between two subdivisions in Salt Lake County. In 1909, the Margarethe subdivision plat map contained metes and bounds descriptions but also depicted a creek that was not mentioned in the legal descriptions. A 1967 survey relocated the subdivision boundaries to align with this creek, creating an overlap with the neighboring Maple City subdivision. The Smays purchased property relying on the 1967 survey boundaries, while Clark later acquired overlapping property in the Maple City subdivision based on the original metes and bounds descriptions.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether a creek depicted on a subdivision plat map constitutes a called-to monument sufficient to override metes and bounds descriptions. Under Utah law, calls to monuments generally take precedence over courses and distances because monuments are fixed objects that better reflect the parties’ intentions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision favoring the metes and bounds description. The court distinguished this case from precedents involving explicit monument calls in legal descriptions. Here, the creek was never mentioned in any legal description but was only “roughly drawn” on the plat map as a “freehand drawing” without measurements or angles connecting it to property boundaries. The court emphasized that for a monument to control, it must be “clearly designated and accurately described” in the legal description itself.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that mere depiction of natural features on plat maps, without explicit textual references in legal descriptions, cannot override metes and bounds descriptions. Practitioners should carefully examine whether purported monuments are actually “called to” in the legal descriptions rather than simply illustrated on accompanying maps.
Case Details
Case Name
Clark v. Smay
Citation
2005 UT App 36
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20020758-CA
Date Decided
January 27, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A creek depicted on a subdivision plat map but not mentioned in the legal description does not constitute a called-to monument sufficient to override a metes and bounds description.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding whether a creek qualifies as a called-to monument and whether the creek’s location prevails over metes and bounds descriptions
Practice Tip
When challenging boundary descriptions, ensure that any claimed monuments are explicitly referenced in the legal description, not merely depicted on plat maps without textual calls.
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.