Utah Court of Appeals
When does a surveyor owe a duty to adjacent landowners? Boyer v. Boyer Explained
Summary
Helen Boyer, as trustee, brought a quiet title action and sued a surveyor for negligence after the surveyor’s boundary survey resulted in a fence being moved onto her property. The trial court dismissed the surveyor on summary judgment, quieted title in Boyer’s favor, but denied damages and attorney fees.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Boyer v. Boyer addressed an important question regarding surveyor liability to adjacent property owners. The case arose from a boundary dispute between neighboring landowners that resulted in multiple surveys and fence relocations.
Background and Facts: The dispute involved two adjacent sections of land in Summit County. After inheriting the properties, the Boyer family members disagreed about the boundary line. Tom Boyer commissioned three different surveys over the years, with the final survey by Dannie Green placing the boundary line approximately 420 feet into the adjacent property owned by the Trust. Based on this survey, Tom moved his fence accordingly. Helen Boyer, as trustee, sued both Tom and the surveyor Green for negligence and wrongful lien.
Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether a surveyor owes a duty of care to adjacent landowners who neither commissioned the survey nor relied on its results. The court also addressed whether the plaintiff could recover damages, costs, and attorney fees.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the surveyor, holding that no duty existed between Green and the Trust. The court distinguished Bushnell v. Sillitoe, noting that the general rule is that surveyors owe no duty to adjoining landowners who did not contract for or rely on the survey. The court emphasized that the Trust never relied on Green’s survey but instead disputed it. Supporting this conclusion, the court cited similar holdings from Ohio and Missouri courts.
Practice Implications: This decision clarifies that in boundary disputes, claims against surveyors face significant hurdles unless the plaintiff contracted for or relied on the survey work. Practitioners should focus negligence claims on the landowner who commissioned the disputed survey rather than the surveyor. However, the court reversed on damages, holding that even when substantial damages cannot be proven, nominal damages must be awarded for unauthorized entry onto real property. The court also confirmed that attorney fees under Utah Code section 78-27-56 require both lack of merit and bad faith.
Case Details
Case Name
Boyer v. Boyer
Citation
2008 UT App 138
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20061163-CA
Date Decided
April 17, 2008
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A surveyor commissioned by one landowner owes no duty of care to adjacent landowners who did not contract for or rely on the survey.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings and questions of law; clear error for factual findings
Practice Tip
When challenging boundary surveys, focus claims on the landowner who commissioned the survey rather than the surveyor, as Utah law generally does not recognize a duty between surveyors and non-contracting adjacent landowners.
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.