Crane v. Crane
1984 Utah LEXIS 815, 683 P.2d 1062 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement in gross is transferable if it is commercial in nature, meaning its use results primarily in economic benefit. The prescriptive use of land by members of an unincorporated association for the association's purposes inures to the benefit of all individual members, allowing them to tack on the use of their predecessors to satisfy the required time period.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are twelve members of the Water Hollow Grazing Association who hold federal permits to graze cattle on a national forest allotment.
- To access the allotment each spring and fall, the association members drive their cattle across a trail on property owned by the defendants, the Cranes.
- This use of the trail for driving cattle began in 1943 and has been continuous since the association was formed around 1950.
- The Cranes purchased their property in 1948.
- Around 1963, the Cranes installed a locked gate across the trail and provided a key to the association.
- On at least one occasion in the 1950s, the association president told Elliott Crane that if the gate were locked, they would break it down and go through.
- On numerous occasions between 1953 and 1977, association riders cut fences or sawed the gate in two to pass when they were denied access or did not have a key.
- Ten of the twelve plaintiff members acquired their grazing permits and began using the trail less than 20 years prior to the lawsuit, having obtained them from predecessors in the association.
Procedural Posture:
- The twelve members of the Water Hollow Grazing Association filed suit against the landowners, the Cranes, in district court.
- The plaintiffs sought a judicial decree establishing that they had an easement by prescription to drive cattle across the defendants' property.
- The district court (the court of first instance) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, decreeing the existence of the easement.
- The defendants (the Cranes) appealed the district court's judgment to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the seasonal driving of cattle across another's land by members of an unincorporated grazing association, under a claim of right that included forcibly breaking through locked gates, establish a transferable, commercial easement by prescription for all current members, even those who have not personally used the trail for the full 20-year prescriptive period?
Opinions:
Majority - Oaks, Justice
Yes. The members of the grazing association established a transferable, commercial easement by prescription. The court found the use was adverse, not permissive, due to the association's consistent assertion of a right to cross and the overt acts of cutting fences and gates when access was denied. This demonstrated a use that was hostile and under a claim of right, and the landowners failed to meet their burden of proving the use was permissive. The court further held that this easement in gross was commercial in character because its purpose was to support the for-profit cattle operations of the members. Adopting the modern rule, the court concluded that such commercial easements in gross are transferable, allowing the ten newer members to tack their use onto their predecessors' use to satisfy the 20-year prescriptive period. Alternatively, the court reasoned that the continuous prescriptive use by the association's agents for the association's purpose inures to the benefit of all its individual members, satisfying the 20-year requirement for everyone.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes Utah property law by formally adopting the distinction between non-transferable personal easements in gross and alienable commercial easements in gross. It aligns Utah with the modern trend and the Restatement of Property, providing clarity on the transferability of economically valuable rights-of-way. Furthermore, the ruling provides a crucial mechanism for unincorporated associations, which cannot hold title to property themselves, to secure durable property rights for their members through collective action. This precedent is vital for agricultural, recreational, or other groups that rely on common access across private lands.
