Utah Supreme Court
Can Utah courts enforce easements without fixed locations? Evans v. Board of County Commissioners Explained
Summary
Evans claimed an easement over land owned by Utah County based on a deed reservation that specified width, purpose, and general area but not the exact location. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County finding the easement too vague, but the court of appeals reversed.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 1983, R.L. Bird Company quit-claimed land within the Ironton Plat to Utah County, reserving an easement and right-of-way over a 56-foot wide strip to provide access from Highway 89 to Bird’s remaining corner property. The deed specified the easement’s width, purpose, and general area but did not fix its exact location. Bird later conveyed the corner property and easement to Jamie and Terry Evans, who sued Utah County seeking enforcement when the County argued the easement was unenforceable due to its vague location description.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether an easement lacking a precise location description contains sufficient detail to be enforceable. The County contended that without express descriptive language fixing the location, the easement failed to meet the essential requirement of communicating the burden of the servitude with sufficient clarity to the servient estate owner.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied the principle that the burden of the servitude must be communicated to the owner of the servient estate with sufficient clarity. While acknowledging that fixing location is desirable, the court found that other terms can safeguard the servient estate from excessive burden. Here, the deed precisely described the strip’s area, the easement’s 56-foot width, the dominant estate, and the stated purpose. The court adopted a gap-filling approach, assigning Utah County the authority to select the easement’s location within reasonable parameters, joining the majority of jurisdictions that empower the servient estate owner to designate reasonable easement locations.
Practice Implications
This decision provides a practical solution for easements with unfixed locations while emphasizing the importance of detailed deed language. Practitioners should include comprehensive descriptions of width, purpose, area, and other essential terms even when location cannot be precisely specified. The ruling also establishes Utah’s adoption of the majority approach allowing servient estate owners to reasonably locate easements, providing predictability for future easement disputes and contract interpretation issues involving missing terms.
Case Details
Case Name
Evans v. Board of County Commissioners
Citation
2005 UT 74
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20040739
Date Decided
November 4, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An easement without a fixed location can be enforceable when the deed contains sufficient detail about the easement’s essential features and the servient estate owner can be assigned authority to select the location.
Standard of Review
Correctness (reviewing court of appeals decision without deference)
Practice Tip
When drafting easement agreements, specify location precisely, but if location is omitted, include detailed descriptions of width, purpose, area, and other essential terms to support enforceability.
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.