Utah Supreme Court
How should Utah courts determine the scope of prescriptive easements? SRB Investment Co. v. Spencer Explained
Summary
SRB Investment sought to establish a prescriptive easement across Spencer family property to access its land, which it intended to use for vacation cabins rather than the historical ranching/farming purposes. The district court granted the easement but improperly limited its scope based on the intended use of SRB’s property rather than the historical burden on the Spencer property.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in SRB Investment Co. v. Spencer provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling prescriptive easement disputes, establishing a clear framework for determining easement scope that focuses on burden rather than purpose.
Background and Facts
Norman Carroll used a road crossing Spencer family property to access his land for over twenty years, primarily for ranching and farming. In 2005, Carroll sold his property to SRB Investment Company, which intended to use the land for vacation cabins rather than agricultural purposes. When the Spencers objected to continued use of the road, SRB filed suit to establish a prescriptive easement.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was how to properly determine the scope of a prescriptive easement. The district court established the easement but limited its use to “farming and ranching purposes” and prohibited multiple house buildings on SRB’s property. This raised the question of whether easement scope should be determined by the historical use of the dominant estate or the burden imposed on the servient estate.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, establishing an important distinction between an easement’s “type” and “scope.” The court held that easement type should be defined broadly based on the general purpose for which the servient estate was used, while scope should focus specifically on the historical burden imposed on the servient estate. The court emphasized that subjective purposes for using an easement are relevant only insofar as they provide evidence of the burden on the servient estate.
Practice Implications
This decision provides a flexible framework that courts should consider: physical dimensions of historical use, frequency and intensity of use, and effects on aesthetic and economic value of the servient property. Practitioners should focus their evidence and arguments on these burden-related factors rather than on how clients intend to use their dominant estates. The court’s approach allows for reasonable changes in use so long as they don’t materially increase the burden on either party, preserving the utility of prescriptive rights over time.
Case Details
Case Name
SRB Investment Co. v. Spencer
Citation
2020 UT 23
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20190034
Date Decided
May 8, 2020
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The scope of a prescriptive easement must be determined by focusing on the burden historically imposed on the servient estate, not on the purposes for which the dominant estate is used.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal standards; abuse of discretion for factual findings and application of correct legal standard to facts
Practice Tip
When arguing prescriptive easement scope, focus evidence and argument on the physical dimensions, frequency, intensity, and aesthetic/economic impact of the historical use on the servient estate, not on the dominant estate owner’s subjective purposes.
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.