Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Sandy City and Plaintiffs Mark Haik and several others all hold deeds to the same water right. Sandy City recorded a sales agreement for the right in 1977, but did not record the deed until 2004. The Plaintiffs purchased the same water right in 2003, and recorded that deed immediately. The district court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the recorded contract was not sufficient notice to Plaintiffs. The agreement was an executory contract that gave no indication whether the deed to the right was actually delivered. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the district court erred in giving the right to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court found that in some circumstances ârecord noticeâ of an equitable interest in water rights could subvert a claim by another good faith purchaser of the same right, but those circumstances were not present in this case. The Court held that since Plaintiffs were the first to file their deed, they held the water right.

The Oak Lane Homeowners Association (the Association) sought review of the appellate courtâs judgment in favor of Defendants Dennis and Renae Griffin. The previous owners of the Griffinsâ property âhad an understandingâ that the lane in question could only be used with permission. The Griffins had used the lane for ingress and egress for fifteen years. Their neighbors sought to form the Association in order to maintain the lane. When the Association asked the Griffins to join, the Griffins refused, and asserted their intent to continue to use the lane. The Association sought quitclaim deeds from all original owners of the platted lots. After receiving them, the Association placed huge boulders in the edges to prevent the Griffins from accessing their property from the lane. The Association argued that the Defendants did not have a private easement over a private lane. The appellate court found that a private easement was created in favor of the Griffiths because their deed in the subdivisionâs recorded plat showed their property abuts the private lane. On appeal, the Association argued that recognizing the Griffinsâ âeasement by platâ is inconsistent with the state law. The Supreme Court disagreed: â[w]e have repeatedly held that when a property abuts a public roadway, a private easement over that roadway arises in favor of the abutting landowner.â Seeing no reason to distinguish a private lane from a public road, the Court upheld the appellate courtâs grant of summary judgment to the Griffins.