Can subjective testimony defeat an implied easement claim in Utah? Bridge BLOQ NAC v. Sorf Explained

In Bridge BLOQ NAC v. Sorf, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified that subjective testimony about property owners’ intentions cannot defeat an implied easement claim when the objective circumstances support finding such an easement.

Background and Facts

Two adjoining properties were originally owned by the same parties before being severed in 2001. The eastern property included a paved alley that the western property owner (Sorf) continued using for ingress and egress, deliveries, and parking. Years later, Bridge acquired the eastern property and sued to quiet title. Sorf counterclaimed for an implied easement over the alley. At trial, Mr. Sorf testified he never intended to grant an easement but rather believed he would own half the alley, and that he “NEVER would have agreed” to convey the property if he had known the alley was included.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Mr. Sorf’s subjective testimony about his intent defeated the implied easement claim. Bridge argued that because Sorf testified he wanted ownership rather than easement rights, no implied easement by prior use could exist. The court also addressed whether parking rights could be included in an implied easement’s scope.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding all four elements of an implied easement satisfied: (1) unity of title followed by severance, (2) apparent and visible use at severance, (3) reasonable necessity, and (4) continuous use. Critically, the court rejected Bridge’s intent argument, citing Adamson v. Brockbank for the principle that implied easements depend on what parties “probably would have intended” given the circumstances, not their subjective recollections years later. The court noted that Mr. Sorf’s testimony actually supported the easement by demonstrating the alley’s importance to the western property’s operations.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that objective circumstances at the time of property severance control implied easement analysis, not subjective testimony offered during litigation. Practitioners should focus on documenting actual use patterns, necessity, and visibility rather than relying solely on client recollections about intent. The decision also confirms that parking rights can be included within an implied easement’s scope when supported by the parties’ probable expectations at severance.