The Appellate Group

Metropolitan Water District v. Sorf

Metropolitan Water District v. Sorf, 2023 UT App 146 (Harris, J.)

Muncipal/Civil Procedure

The Metropolitan Water District (District) owned an easement over Sorf’s property. After Sorf installed improvements on his property, the District sued alleging the improvements unreasonably interfered with the District’s use of the easement. A jury ruled in Sorf’s favor, finding the improvements did not unreasonably interfere with the District’s use of the easement. The District appealed. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:

  • The district court did not err in refusing the District’s request to instruct the jury on a bright-line exception to the rule of mutual reasonableness for easements. The rule was not supported by Utah case law.  
  • There was no legal error nor abuse of discretion in the remaining instructions given to the jury, including the special verdict form. 
  • The district court did not err in refusing to limit an expert’s testimony.
  • Practice tip: In declining to adopt a bright-line exception to the rule of mutual reasonableness for easements, the court noted that the Utah Supreme Court had “long followed” the rule of mutual reasonableness. But it recognized that its analysis did not foreclose future consideration of an exception in cases involving ingress/egress easements. 

Read the full court opinion