Utah Court of Appeals
Can a railroad convey valid title after abandoning its right-of-way? Drazich v. Lasson Explained
Summary
Louise Drazich appealed a trial court judgment quieting title in favor of Alan Lasson regarding overlapping property descriptions in their adjacent parcels. The disputed land had a common origin in an 1875 patent to James Bell, but Drazich’s chain of title included a problematic 1882 conveyance to a railroad company and a subsequent 1958 deed from the railroad after it had abandoned the right-of-way.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Louise Drazich and Alan Lasson owned adjacent properties in Salt Lake County with overlapping legal descriptions, prompting Drazich to file a quiet title action. Both parties traced their titles to a common origin: an 1875 federal patent to James Bell. Drazich’s chain of title included an 1882 conveyance from Abraham Helm to the Denver & Rio Grande Railway Company describing a corridor “two rods in width” along railroad tracks. The railroad ceased paying taxes and using the land around 1904, began quitclaiming interests by 1926, and issued a Special Warranty Deed to Building Supply Center in 1958 based on an engineering survey. Lasson’s chain showed consistent legal descriptions dating back to at least 1951.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the 1882 Indenture conveyed fee title or merely a right-of-way subject to abandonment, and whether the railroad had a valid interest to convey in 1958. Additional issues included the effect of the imprecise legal description in the 1882 Indenture and the timing of the railroad’s abandonment.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied the fundamental principle that “one can only convey as much estate in land as one actually has.” The court found the 1882 Indenture’s legal description was imprecise and conveyed only a right-of-way subject to abandonment, not fee title. Since the railroad abandoned this interest before issuing its 1958 deed, it lacked any valid interest to convey to Building Supply Center. The court rejected Drazich’s challenges to factual findings for failing to marshal the evidence as required by Utah appellate procedure.
Practice Implications
This case reinforces critical principles for title examination and appellate practice. Property lawyers must carefully analyze each link in a chain of title, particularly regarding railroad conveyances which often involved rights-of-way rather than fee interests. The decision also emphasizes appellate practitioners’ obligation to marshal evidence when challenging factual findings—failure to do so results in automatic rejection of the challenge regardless of its potential merit.
Case Details
Case Name
Drazich v. Lasson
Citation
1998 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 971333-CA
Date Decided
August 6, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A railroad that had abandoned its right-of-way interest before conveying property could not transfer valid title to subsequent grantees.
Standard of Review
Clearly erroneous for findings of fact; correctness for conclusions of law
Practice Tip
When challenging trial court factual findings on appeal, appellants must marshal all evidence supporting the findings and demonstrate they are clearly erroneous, or the challenge will be rejected.
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.