Utah Supreme Court
Must prescriptive easements be limited to their historical use? Harrison v. Spah Family Ltd. Explained
Summary
The Hollands claimed a prescriptive easement across the Harrisons’ property to access their cabin. The district court granted summary judgment establishing the easement, but at trial the jury was improperly instructed that it could determine the width necessary for access rather than being limited to historical use. The Supreme Court remanded for a new trial with correct jury instructions.
Analysis
In Harrison v. Spah Family Ltd., the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about the scope of prescriptive easements and whether they can expand beyond their historical use during the prescriptive period.
Background and Facts
The Hollands claimed a prescriptive easement across the Harrisons’ property to access their cabin in the Willow Basin subdivision. The road was initially cut by the Hollands’ predecessor without the original landowner’s permission in 1994. The Hollands used the road continuously from 1996 until 2016, when the Harrisons attempted to block access with a bulldozer. The district court granted summary judgment establishing the prescriptive easement, but the case proceeded to trial to determine the easement’s scope.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the jury instruction properly limited the easement’s scope to its historical use. The instruction told jurors to determine the width “necessary” for access while only considering historical use as one factor. The Harrisons argued this was erroneous because prescriptive easements must be limited to their historical scope.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that the jury instruction was erroneous. The court emphasized that a prescriptive easement’s scope “should be defined with particularity based on the nature or extent of that historical use.” The instruction improperly treated historical use as merely one factor rather than “the ultimate question to be decided.” The court explained that prescriptive users cannot acquire rights that place a greater burden on the servient estate than was imposed during the prescriptive period.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that prescriptive easements are strictly limited to their historical scope. Practitioners must focus on documenting the actual historical use during the prescriptive period rather than arguing for expanded rights based on current necessity. When drafting jury instructions, ensure they require determination of historical extent rather than reasonable necessity for access.
Case Details
Case Name
Harrison v. Spah Family Ltd.
Citation
2020 UT 22
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180537
Date Decided
May 8, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A prescriptive easement’s scope must be limited to its historical use during the prescriptive period, not what is reasonably necessary for current access needs.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings and jury instructions; abuse of discretion for expert testimony admissibility decisions
Practice Tip
When drafting jury instructions for prescriptive easement scope, ensure the instruction requires the jury to determine the historical extent of use rather than what is reasonably necessary for current access.
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.