Can property disputes lead to stalking injunctions in Utah? Hasemeyer v. LeFevre Explained

In Hasemeyer v. LeFevre, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether property-related conduct can satisfy Utah’s civil stalking injunction statute when a neighbor repeatedly trespassed and damaged property while claiming easement rights.

Background and Facts

LeFevre and Hasemeyer were neighbors involved in a disputed easement across Hasemeyer’s property. LeFevre wanted to use this easement to build an access road to reach an undeveloped portion of his property. On three occasions between October 2024 and February 2025, LeFevre entered Hasemeyer’s property with his tractor. He destroyed mature trees and vegetation on the first two occasions despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Hasemeyer’s attorney. During the final incident, LeFevre drove his tractor directly at Hasemeyer’s wife twice, forcing her to back away from the approaching vehicle.

Key Legal Issues

The court analyzed whether LeFevre’s conduct satisfied the two key elements of Utah’s stalking statute: (1) whether he engaged in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual, and (2) whether his conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for safety or suffer emotional distress. LeFevre argued his actions were merely attempts to exercise property rights, not conduct directed at individuals.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the stalking injunction, finding both elements satisfied. For the course of conduct element, the court determined that entering another’s property and interfering with their property constituted acts “directed at” the property owner under the statute, regardless of the actor’s subjective intent. The court emphasized that conduct is evaluated cumulatively rather than in isolation. For the fear or distress element, the court found LeFevre’s escalating pattern of trespassing, property damage, and threatening behavior with heavy machinery would cause a reasonable person emotional distress.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that property disputes can escalate into stalking cases when the conduct targets specific individuals. Practitioners should note that one judge authored a separate section suggesting the current interpretation of “directed at a specific individual” may be too broad, potentially sweeping in conduct that doesn’t constitute true stalking. The decision also clarifies that district courts must hold evidentiary hearings within ten days of a respondent’s request unless compelling reasons justify delay, though scheduling difficulties may constitute such reasons depending on the circumstances and impact on the respondent.