In a decision issued Friday, the Utah Court of Appeals rejected a motion from the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy in a lawsuit regarding the construction of private structures on land that happens to be within an easement used to maintain district pipelines.
The lawsuit was first filed in October of 2010 by the District against a homeowner whose backyard happened to be within the 125 foot easement, after he had installed a number of improvements, including a shed, a hot tub, a deck, and additional landscaping.
The district argued the improvements violated their regulations regarding the use of land within the easement, further arguing that the homeowner should have gotten permission from them before making the improvements to his backyard. The district also argued that the improvements interfered with their ability to maintain a pipeline that happened to run under the property.
After a jury ruled the improvements did not "unreasonably interfere" with district's ability to use the easement, they appealed, arguing that the court failed to ask the jury to consider whether the cumulative effects of the improvements would affect their ability to service the pipeline.
The district also argued the court should not have accepted the testimony of an engineer who testified on the homeowner's behalf, and also asked the court to apply a bright-line legal rule stating that any permanent structure built within an easement was considered "unreasonable as a matter of law."
In an opinion written by Judge Ryan Harris, the court argued that such a rule would go against the principle of "mutual reasonableness" listed under current state law.
"Utah law regarding easements has long been characterized by the principle that “the owners of the dominant and servient estates must exercise their rights so as not unreasonably to interfere with the other,” Harris writes. "The benefits of a bright-line rule would clearly outweigh the loss of social utilization that comes with preventing otherwise reasonable uses of land."
The opinion also affirmed the verdict forms jurors were provided during the the trial, stating the jury would have likely reached the same conclusion even if questions of cumulative impact were included.
The court also upheld the acceptance of the engineer's testimony, saying the district's arguments assumed the discussion of "reasonableness" only applied to the homeowner's use of the property and not the district's.
