Utah Supreme Court
Can improvements to a prescriptive easement exceed the scope of the original use? Valcarce v. Fitzgerald Explained
Summary
The Valcarces appealed a trial court decision finding the Fitzgerald parties had a prescriptive easement for an irrigation canal across the Valcarces’ property and awarding damages and attorney fees for interference with the water rights. The Valcarces had damaged the irrigation canal and interfered with water delivery to downstream properties.
Analysis
In Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, the Utah Supreme Court addressed important questions about the scope of prescriptive easements for irrigation purposes and the proper allocation of attorney fees in water rights disputes.
Background and Facts
An irrigation canal carrying water from the Packer-Stauffer Spring had run across the Valcarce property for at least forty years, serving downstream properties leased by James Fitzgerald and owned by the Julanders and Fairview “C” Bar Ranch. Around 1990, Paul Valcarce began damaging the head gate and filling the canal with dirt, preventing water from reaching the downstream users. To minimize crop damage, Fitzgerald installed a ten-inch PVC pipe across the Valcarce property to replace the damaged canal section. The Valcarces sued for trespass, and the Fitzgerald parties counterclaimed to establish their prescriptive easement rights.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether the Fitzgerald parties had established a prescriptive easement, whether Fitzgerald’s installation of a plastic pipe exceeded the scope of the easement, and whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees under section 78-27-56.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the prescriptive easement finding, noting that once open and continuous use for twenty years is proven, adverse use is presumed unless the landowner proves the initial use was permissive. The court also upheld Fitzgerald’s pipe installation under Utah’s unique water law doctrine from Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, which allows “reasonable and necessary improved structures” for water conservation without unnecessarily burdening the servient estate. However, the court reversed the attorney fees award, finding the trial court failed to allocate fees between successful and unsuccessful claims and improperly awarded costs without compliance with Rule 54(d).
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces Utah’s liberal approach to improvements on prescriptive easements for irrigation purposes, allowing modernization for water conservation. However, practitioners should ensure proper allocation of attorney fees between successful and unsuccessful claims when seeking fees under section 78-27-56, as wholesale awards without allocation will be reversed on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Valcarce v. Fitzgerald
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
Nos. 960144, 960201
Date Decided
December 5, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The trial court properly found the existence of a prescriptive easement and reasonable improvements to the easement, but erred in awarding attorney fees without proper allocation between successful and unsuccessful claims and in awarding costs without compliance with Rule 54(d).
Standard of Review
Broad discretion for the trial judge when applying legal standards to given set of facts for prescriptive easement findings; correctness for questions of law; marshaling evidence required to challenge findings of fact; abuse of discretion for attorney fee determinations; patent error or clear abuse of discretion for attorney fee awards
Practice Tip
When challenging attorney fee awards under section 78-27-56, ensure the trial court allocates fees between successful and unsuccessful claims, as wholesale awards without allocation will be reversed on appeal.
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.