SRB Investment v. Spencer
SRB Investment v. Spencer, 2023 UT App 120 (Tenney, J.)
SRB held a prescriptive easement across the Spencers’ land. The district court determined that the Spencers could change the location of the road in “minor” ways. The Spencers appealed, arguing they had an “absolute right” to move the road. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court followed the directions in the mandate from the Utah Supreme Court when the district court made its determination.
- Practice tip: Appellants adequately preserved their “law of the case” even without using that phrase because their argument below was essentially a “law of the case” argument “both in terms of its core legal rationale and its ultimate request.”
- Practice tip: For litigation involving the “scope” of a prescriptive easement, attorneys must consult SRB Inv. Co. v. Spencer, 2020 UT 23, and its application in SRB Investment v. Spencer, 2023 UT App 120.