Utah Court of Appeals
Who has the right to set easement boundaries on servient property? Radakovich v. Cornaby Explained
Summary
The Cornabys appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion to reconsider a summary judgment order that granted the Radakoviches a sixty-foot right-of-way across Cornaby property. The trial court’s order improperly granted the Radakoviches, as owners of the dominant estate, the right to mark the precise boundaries of the easement.
Analysis
In Radakovich v. Cornaby, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important principle regarding easement boundary designation while also addressing the evolving landscape of post-judgment motions following the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Gillett v. Price.
Background and Facts
The Radakoviches filed suit to enforce a sixty-foot right-of-way across property owned by the Cornabys. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Radakoviches, confirming the easement and ordering that it be sixty feet wide throughout its length. Importantly, the court’s order stated that the Radakoviches were “entitled to construct fences marking the sixty foot wide right of way.” The Cornabys filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. The Cornabys appealed only the denial of their motion to reconsider, having missed the deadline to appeal the underlying summary judgment order.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two significant issues: first, whether post-judgment motions to reconsider remain viable after Gillett v. Price, and second, which party—the dominant estate owner (Radakoviches) or the servient estate owner (Cornabys)—should have the right to designate the precise boundaries of an established easement.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court emphasized that post-judgment motions to reconsider are not authorized under Utah’s procedural rules and “will no longer be considered.” However, because the Cornabys’ motion was filed before Gillett, the court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Applying Evans v. Board of County Commissioners, the court held that “the owner of the servient estate is entitled to designate a reasonable location for the easement.” The trial court erred by granting the Radakoviches the right to mark the easement boundaries.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the principle from Evans that servient estate owners should have the first opportunity to designate easement locations and boundaries, as they are “best able to safeguard the servient estate from the risk that its burden may be greater than that for which it bargained.” The case also serves as a warning to practitioners about the elimination of motions to reconsider—future such motions will not toll appeal deadlines and may subject attorneys to malpractice claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Radakovich v. Cornaby
Citation
2006 UT App 454
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050911-CA
Date Decided
November 9, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The owner of the servient estate, not the dominant estate, should have the first opportunity to designate the precise location of an easement’s boundaries.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for denial of motion to reconsider; correctness for conclusions of law
Practice Tip
When seeking relief from judgment, identify the specific rule-sanctioned relief sought rather than filing generic motions to reconsider, which are no longer recognized after Gillett v. Price.
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.