C-B-K Ranch LLC v. Glenna R. Thomas Trust

537 P.3d 280

C-B-K RANCH LLC, Appellant,

v.GLENNA R. THOMAS TRUST and Glenna R. Thomas, Appellees.

No. 20210584-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed September 21, 2023

Stephen J. Stocks, Attorney for Appellant

Craig C. Halls, Monticello, Attorney for Appellees

Judge John D. Luthy authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan D. Tenney concurred.

Opinion

LUTHY, Judge:

¶1 This is a dispute over the scope of an easement. C-B-K Ranch LLC (C-B-K) and the Glenna R. Thomas Trust (the Trust) own adjoining parcels of land. C-B-K holds an access easement over a roadway crossing the Trust's property, which C-B-K must use to reach its property. The gate on the roadway sometimes malfunctions, and C-B-K brought suit seeking to replace it with an electric gate. The Trust opposed this request, arguing that the proposed gate would be less convenient for the Trust's uses, would invite trespassers, and would likely be unreliable. After a bench trial, the district court found that replacing the gate with an electric one would place an unreasonable burden on the Trust's estate. Because we determine that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard in reaching that conclusion, we reverse and remand the matter with instructions for the court to reconsider the issue applying the correct legal standard.

BACKGROUND

¶2 C-B-K and the Trust own neighboring properties in the La Sal Mountains in Grand County, Utah. For nearly forty years, C-B-K has used a roadway traversing the Trust's property to access its own property. This roadway continues across C-B-K's property. On the portion of the road that runs over the Trust's property, there is a large, metal swing gate. The gate is secured by a chain, which is divided into multiple sections such that it can be removed by unlocking either a combination lock belonging to C-B-K or a combination lock belonging to the Trust.

¶3 The gate is now defective. Sometimes the end attached to a post gets out of position, causing the end not attached to the post to drag on the ground. When that happens, a person wanting to open the gate must lift the swinging end off the ground and carry it. Due to his age and health, C-B-K's acting manager (Manager) has difficulty opening the gate when it malfunctions.

¶4 C-B-K brought suit, alleging that it has an easement over the roadway and that it is "entitled to a prescriptive easement ... for the construction, installation, use and maintenance of an [electric] gate at [its] own expense." The Trust responded, insisting that C-B-K's use of the roadway over the Trust's property was permissive and did not "bloom[ ] into a prescriptive easement," and it "further denie[d] that there is such a thing as an easement for an electric gate."

¶5 Before trial, however, the parties stipulated that each had an access easement across the other's property. The district court, in a subsequent order, stated, "[P]ursuant to the [s]tipulation of the parties[,] ... C-B-K Ranch, the dominant estate, is granted a non-commercial easement on the existing road for ingress and egress, ... [s]aid easement being a roadway surface," and "[the Trust] is granted an easement which ... proceeds across the C-B-K property," also "a non-commercial easement for ingress and egress, which is a roadway surface."¹

¶6 The district court held a bench trial on the remaining issue of whether C-B-K was entitled to replace the existing gate with an electric one. Witnesses for C-B-K included Manager and his friend (Friend), who had visited C-B-K's property hundreds of times over several decades. Witnesses for the Trust included the son (Son) and daughter (Daughter) of Glenna R. Thomas, the trustee of the Trust.

¶7 Manager testified that the current gate was installed by Thomas's second husband. Son recounted that it was installed in the early 1990s and that there had previously been a locked barbed wire gate at its location. Daughter said that since the current gate's installation, it has "always had" a chain with multiple combination locks on it. As to who maintains the gate, Manager declared, "Nobody has maintained it, other than everybody that" has had to repair it when it malfunctions.

¶8 Manager described the access to the gate and problems he has experienced with the gate: "[Y]ou park[ ] on the county road and walk up a steep little bank[.] I can usually stumble up there and get up there all right. And then you open the gate and come back, drive through, get out and close the gate and drive on." He indicated that "sometimes the gate will swing, but usually, you have to pick it up ... and [kind of] carry it around." Friend explained that "because [of] the way they hung the hinges, it has a tendency to fall down and drag [on] the ground on the end where you unlock it." When this happens, he said, "[y]ou have to pick up the end of it and carry it around[,] and if it goes too far, then the way the hinges are bent and hanging down, you have a real hard time picking it up to clear the ground" because "the hinges keep it in a bind when you're trying to open it." Friend recounted how he had adjusted the gate multiple times "[w]ith a hammer ... [a]nd wrenches, releasing the bolts so that [he could] beat it back around where it belongs and then tighten the bolts again."

¶9 Daughter and Son agreed that the gate sometimes drags, and they attributed this malfunction to the effects of moisture during winter. Daughter stated that "on a wet year, after the snow[,] ... the gate will lean a little bit." Son testified that the gate did not drag after the most recent winter "because [of a] lack of moisture" and that, accordingly, the gate had last been repaired by Daughter the previous summer. The court admitted two videos the Trust submitted showing the gate swinging freely, including one in which the following editorial comments can be heard: "So there you go, kids. I don't know who can't open that gate, but I guess if you can't open the gate, don't go [up] the mountain."

¶10 When asked how hard it is for him to pick up the gate when it drags, Manager responded, "[I]t's getting harder and harder. ... I can still get it done[.] [I]t takes awhile[,] but yeah, I'm going downhill[.] I'm 87 years old and figure ... I won't even be able to open it at all by next year, probably." Manager explained why he wanted to replace the gate:

[The] number one [reason] ... is my age and health problems; number two is it's just so much handier to push a button, the gate opens, you drive through it and go on.

And after a minute it will automatically close. ... And it's a much, much prettier gate.

¶11 Manager referred to an electric gate with a solar panel that he and his son had built and installed on his land, and he explained that he wanted to build and install the same type of gate to replace the existing one on the easement. He said that if he installed the proposed gate, he would give the Trust "at least four" remote-controlled "clickers" that would allow users to open the gate without exiting their vehicles and he would also furnish a keypad that would allow guests to punch in a combination to open the gate, though they would "have to get out of their car[s] to do that." He further noted that the gate would close automatically and then lock automatically. He pledged to pay all costs associated with building, installing, and maintaining the gate. He also stated that the proposed gate would not take up more space than the existing one and that there would be no time when the Trust could not access its property during installation.

¶12 As to the possibility of the electronics of the gate malfunctioning, Manager stated,

[E]verything ... mechanically or electric can break down[.] [W]e ... are not having any problem with [the gate on our property], but if they do have a problem ... , then you merely use two keys, which I will furnish the [Trust,] and you open the ... cylinder that pushes the gate open and closed and [unlock] the locks on the gate and then it swings freely.

Manager indicated that he would also furnish the Trust with at least four sets of the keys necessary for the manual override. He also said that he would like to, if the Trust is "agreeable," "bury a little plastic can there with a set of keys" in it so that the keys would be available if the manual override were necessary and the user did not bring a set of keys.

¶13 When asked about any issues he had encountered with his electric gate, Manager candidly recounted that he had experienced "a lot of problems" with it when he and his son "originally installed it," due to changes in temperature moving the post it hangs on, but he averred that they found a way to "solve[ ] the problem." He testified that the electric gate now works "very fine." And he indicated that an electric gate is "an advancement in technology."

¶14 Daughter and Son explained some of the concerns the Trust has with an electric gate. First, Son spoke about his experiences with an electric gate on a property he owned in Arizona. He said that "it would work about a third of the time," even though the solar panel was "in the sun all the time," and he agreed that this experience made him concerned about the reliability of the electric gate Manager was proposing.

¶15 Son and Daughter also conveyed that the Trust is especially worried that the proposed gate would be less secure than the existing gate. Son expressed concern with the aesthetic of the gate, indicating that "the fancier things are," the more likely the public—who has access to the gate as it abuts a county-maintained road—will think that the property owner has things worth hiding. He and Daughter relayed that the Trust had previously experienced issues with people removing signs warning against trespassing and also "jimmy[ing] the gate to get in" to the property. Daughter shared her worry that people would steal the gate's solar panel or disassemble the electric gate and access the property. Son called the "security issue" a "huge deal" and...