Utah Court of Appeals
Can parties reserve an easement for someone who is a stranger to the deed? Potter v. Chadaz Explained
Summary
Chadaz appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment quieting title to a 66-foot parcel in favor of the Potters. Chadaz claimed an easement based on language in various deeds and agreements, but had conveyed away her interest in the property before any alleged reservation was made.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Potter v. Chadaz reaffirmed an important limitation on easement creation: parties cannot reserve easements for third parties who are “strangers to the deed” and lack any interest in the property.
Background and Facts
Chadaz sold approximately 47 acres to Heritage Partners in 1980, including a 1.58-acre parcel containing the disputed 66-foot strip. Heritage Partners later conveyed this parcel to Villatek, with language purporting to reserve a right-of-way “for the purpose of a proposed road.” A supplemental agreement between Chadaz and Heritage also referenced a potential reservation of a 66-foot roadway. Years later, after the Potters acquired part of the property and built improvements, Chadaz claimed an easement over the strip she had never used.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether any express easement, easement by implication, prescriptive easement, or easement by necessity existed in favor of Chadaz. The primary issue concerned whether parties to a land transaction can reserve easements for third parties who lack property interests.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that no easement existed, applying the “stranger to the deed” doctrine. Under Johnson v. Peck, parties cannot reserve easements for third parties who have no interest in the property. Since Chadaz had conveyed away her interest months before Heritage attempted to reserve the right-of-way, she was a stranger to the subsequent deed. The court emphasized that public policy favors certainty in real property titles and protecting bona fide purchasers. Additionally, Chadaz could not establish other forms of easements because she had never used the disputed strip and her property was not landlocked.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that proper easement planning requires careful timing and structure. Property owners seeking to preserve access rights must either retain interests in their original conveyances or obtain direct conveyances from subsequent grantees. The stranger to the deed doctrine protects title certainty but requires practitioners to draft conveyances that avoid third-party reservations.
Case Details
Case Name
Potter v. Chadaz
Citation
1999 UT App 095
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 971756-CA
Date Decided
March 25, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A party cannot reserve an easement in favor of a third party who is a stranger to the deed and has no interest in the property at the time of conveyance.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When drafting property conveyances involving easements, ensure the beneficiary either retains an interest in the property or receives a direct conveyance rather than attempting to reserve rights for third parties.
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.