When does Utah law presume adverse use in prescriptive easement claims? Jacob v. Bate Explained

In Jacob v. Bate, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when courts should presume adverse use in prescriptive easement disputes, affirming a trial court’s finding that defendants had obtained a prescriptive easement over an alleyway.

Background and Facts

The Jacob family owned commercial property including a 10-foot by 130-foot alleyway in American Fork. The adjacent Bate family had operated a hardware store since 1945, using the alleyway for loading, unloading, and building maintenance. When the Bate family attempted to grant a right-of-way in 1936, they lacked legal authority because the alleyway had been sold for unpaid taxes. The Jacobs purchased the property in 1987 with a deed referencing a right-of-way, but later sought to quiet title after discovering the defective 1936 conveyance.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether the trial court correctly applied the presumption of adverse use rather than permissive use, and whether sufficient evidence supported finding a prescriptive easement. The court also addressed whether placing a locked chain across the alleyway extinguished any easement rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Utah law presumes adverse use once a claimant shows open and continuous use for the twenty-year prescriptive period. The court distinguished between mere accommodation among neighbors and actual permission or license. Evidence that the Bate family accommodated each other’s use of the alleyway did not constitute permission sufficient to overcome the presumption. The court found legally sufficient evidence of continuous use from 1948-1977, and determined the locked chain was insufficient to extinguish the easement because it was in place for only nineteen years.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah follows the majority rule presuming adverse use once the basic elements are met. Property owners defending against prescriptive easement claims must present clear evidence of initial permission or license, not merely neighborly accommodation. The twenty-year requirement applies strictly to both establishing and extinguishing easements. For practitioners, this case emphasizes the importance of documenting any permission granted for land use and taking decisive action within the prescriptive period to prevent easement rights from vesting.