Can servient estate owners freely relocate prescriptive roadway easements? SRB Investment v. Spencer Explained

In SRB Investment v. Spencer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether property owners subject to a prescriptive roadway easement can be limited in their ability to relocate that easement. The case provides important guidance on prescriptive easements, the law of the case doctrine, and how courts balance competing property interests on remand.

Background and Facts

SRB Investment owned a 240-acre parcel in rural Kane County accessible only by crossing through property owned by the Spencer family. For decades, the Carroll family (SRB’s predecessors) had used a dirt road across the Spencer property to access their land for farming and ranching. The Spencers would occasionally move the road’s location, cutting “variant roads randomly across their property,” and the Carrolls would use these newly cut roads. However, Carroll testified that location changes were typically minor—the road was only “changed a little bit.”

After SRB purchased the property in 2005, the Spencers began demanding payment for road access and eventually locked a gate, blocking SRB’s access entirely. SRB sued, ultimately obtaining a district court ruling establishing a prescriptive easement.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether the district court violated the law of the case doctrine by imposing limitations on the Spencers’ ability to relocate the easement after remand from the Utah Supreme Court, and (2) whether limiting the Spencers to “reasonable, minor changes” to the road’s location constituted an abuse of discretion.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s limitations. Regarding the law of the case challenge, the court found that while the doctrine applied, it was not violated because the Utah Supreme Court’s remand specifically directed a new scope determination for the easement. The Supreme Court’s mandate included consideration of “reasonable changes in use” and directed a “flexible approach” to accommodate both parties’ interests.

On the substantive limitation issue, the court applied abuse of discretion review and found the “minor” restriction appropriate. The limitation reflected the historical use pattern, where road changes had typically been small adjustments. The court emphasized that the district court properly balanced SRB’s access rights against avoiding material increases in burden on the Spencer property.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates how courts will limit prescriptive easement modifications based on historical use patterns. Property owners cannot assume unlimited relocation rights simply because some historical movement occurred. Additionally, the case illustrates that remand mandates may be broader than initially apparent, encompassing issues that seem collateral to the specific holdings reversed. Practitioners should carefully analyze appellate mandates to understand the full scope of issues properly before the trial court on remand.