Utah Supreme Court
Can informal survey markers establish property boundaries in Utah? Edgell v. Canning Explained
Summary
The Edgells sued neighbors to determine the boundary between subdivision lots after defendants’ survey showed the Edgells’ cabin encroached on defendants’ property. The trial court ruled that the boundary was controlled by the official plat rather than markers the Edgells relied upon, but awarded the Edgells an easement for the cabin encroachment.
Analysis
In Edgell v. Canning, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether informal survey markers can override official subdivision plat boundaries and examined the requirements for establishing prescriptive easements over encroaching structures.
Background and Facts: The Edgells purchased subdivision lot 248 in 1970 and relied on rebar and T-posts they believed marked their property boundaries. Based on these markers, they built improvements including a cabin starting in 1976. When defendants purchased the adjacent lot 249 in 1995 and commissioned a survey, it showed the actual boundary ran through a corner of the Edgells’ cabin. The defendants demanded removal of the encroaching improvements.
Key Legal Issues: The court considered whether informal survey markers could establish property boundaries over official plat descriptions, whether the boundary could be fixed by acquiescence, and whether the Edgells could claim a prescriptive easement for their encroaching structures.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the official subdivision plat controlled the boundary location. The court found insufficient evidence that the markers relied upon by the Edgells were placed during any official survey, with expert testimony suggesting they were placed around 1976—after both the original 1964 subdivision survey and any purported 1970 survey. The court rejected claims for boundary by acquiescence because there was no visible line marked by monuments or fences. The prescriptive easement claim failed because the cabin’s use had not been adverse for the required twenty-year period, lasting only from 1976 to 1995.
Practice Implications: This decision reinforces that official subdivision plats and legal descriptions control property boundaries absent competent evidence of official survey markers. Property owners cannot rely on informal markers of uncertain origin to establish boundaries. For prescriptive easement claims involving structures, practitioners must carefully calculate the twenty-year adverse use period and establish that use was not permissive from the outset.
Case Details
Case Name
Edgell v. Canning
Citation
1999 UT 21
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970497
Date Decided
March 9, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Property boundaries are controlled by official subdivision plats and legal descriptions rather than later-placed markers, and prescriptive easements require twenty years of adverse use.
Standard of Review
The court reviewed findings of fact under Rule 52(a) (cannot disturb findings supported by evidence) and questions of law for correctness
Practice Tip
When challenging property boundary determinations, ensure you have competent evidence that survey markers were placed during the original official survey, as later-placed markers carry no legal weight.
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.