Utah Court of Appeals
Can prescriptive easements include parking rights? Judd v. Bowen Explained
Summary
The Judds claimed prescriptive easement rights to use and park on a circular driveway located almost entirely on the Bowens’ property in Big Cottonwood Canyon. After a century of shared use, disputes arose in 2008 when David Bowen became sole owner and the parties’ relationship deteriorated.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question about the scope of prescriptive easements in Judd v. Bowen, examining whether such easements can encompass parking rights or whether those rights more properly fall under adverse possession doctrine.
Background and Facts
The dispute centered on a century-old circular driveway between two Big Cottonwood Canyon cabins. The Bowens owned the property containing nearly the entire driveway, while the Judds claimed prescriptive rights for both access and parking based on historic use dating to the early 1900s. The parties coexisted peacefully until 2008, when conflicts arose after David Bowen became sole owner and increased his cabin use. The trial court awarded the Judds a prescriptive easement for both access and parking purposes.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues were whether the Judds established the required elements for a prescriptive easement (continuous, open and notorious, and adverse use for twenty years) and whether parking rights can be acquired through prescriptive easement doctrine rather than adverse possession.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the access easement but reversed the parking easement. Regarding access, the court found sufficient evidence supporting continuous, open and notorious, and adverse use. The Bowens failed to rebut the presumption of adversity by proving the use was initially permissive.
However, the court distinguished parking rights from access rights. The parking easement would allow the Judds to occupy and exclude the Bowens from portions of their property for indefinite periods, resembling a “time-share interest” rather than the transitory use typical of easements. This exclusive occupation more closely aligned with adverse possession requirements than the limited, non-possessory nature of easements.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the boundary between prescriptive easements and adverse possession. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether claimed rights involve transitory use (appropriate for easements) or exclusive occupation (requiring adverse possession). The court emphasized that easements cannot effectively deprive landowners of meaningful use and enjoyment of their property, maintaining the crucial balance between easement holders’ limited rights and landowners’ ownership interests.
Case Details
Case Name
Judd v. Bowen
Citation
2017 UT App 56
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140285-CA
Date Decided
March 30, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The Judds acquired a prescriptive easement for access over the Bowens’ driveway but not for parking, as the parking right more closely resembled adverse possession than a limited easement right.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law; broad measure of discretion for application of legal standard to facts; clearly erroneous standard for factual findings
Practice Tip
When seeking prescriptive easements involving parking rights, carefully analyze whether the claimed use constitutes transitory passage or exclusive occupation that would more appropriately be pursued through adverse possession.
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.