When does sporadic use of private property create an easement by estoppel? Hall v. Peterson Explained

In Hall v. Peterson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the challenging question of when sporadic use of private property can establish an easement by estoppel. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling property access disputes and demonstrates the high evidentiary bar required to establish easements through equitable estoppel.

Background and facts: Kyle Hall purchased four lots near Buckhorn Flats that were accessible only via the Peterson Road crossing David Peterson’s property. When Peterson installed a gate and refused Hall access, Hall sued claiming easement by estoppel through his predecessors in interest. The evidence showed minimal historical use: Thomas visited her property “three, maybe four” times since the 1970s, Smith made three visits over forty years, and there was limited evidence of a developer (Diversified) using the road to build a spur road and conduct minimal development activities.

Key legal issues: The court analyzed whether the evidence supported the three elements of easement by estoppel: (1) permission granted by the landowner, (2) reasonable foreseeability that the user would rely on that permission, and (3) substantial change of position by the user. The central question was whether Peterson’s silence in the face of sporadic use constituted implied permission sufficient to establish an easement.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence legally insufficient to support any element of easement by estoppel. The court emphasized that “the gravity of a judicial means of acquiring an interest in land of another solely by parol evidence requires that equitable estoppel be strictly applied, and the estoppel should be certain, precise and clear.” The sporadic use over decades—including three visits by one predecessor and occasional recreational use by others—was insufficient to demonstrate that Peterson gave express or implied permission or that he was even aware of the use.

Practice implications: This decision reinforces that easement by estoppel requires compelling evidence of the landowner’s permission and knowledge. Practitioners should focus on demonstrating pervasive use that would have put the landowner on notice, rather than relying on isolated instances of crossing private property. The decision also clarifies that mere silence by a landowner, without more, cannot establish implied permission unless there was a legal duty to speak or something “willful or culpable” in the silence.