Rippentrop v. Pickering

Utah Supreme Court

Rippentrop v. Pickering

387 P.2d 94, 15 Utah 2d 59, 1963 Utah LEXIS 259

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1963

DocketNo. 9896

StatusPublished

This text of 387 P.2d 94 (Rippentrop v. Pickering) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rippentrop v. Pickering, 387 P.2d 94, 15 Utah 2d 59, 1963 Utah LEXIS 259 (Utah 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint on grounds the evidence did not sustain an averment that plaintiff had acquired title to or an easement in a driveway by marshalling the title and use of predecessors. Affirmed.

For over half century the drive appeared to have been used by adjoining owners, all of whom claimed title to their respective properties through a common grantor, and all of whom, and their predecessors in title, belonged to the same family, until 1959, when the north tract was sold to plaintiff, who brought this action. Before that date, there is no evidence of anything but a cordial family use of the drive, as ordinarily would be the case with kinfolk. Any presumption as to adverse user for more than 20 years ¹ seems clearly to have been dispelled by evidence of permissive, neighborly use.²

The metes and bounds descriptions reflected in the abstracts of title were not destroyed by procedure or proof in this case, but on the contrary the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that any use of the subject drive, looking at the record favorably to appellant, was not adverse and consequently defendant’s record title remained inviolate. We think that after review thereof, we are constrained to and do hold that our pronouncements in Lunt v. Kitchens ³ and the authorities therein cited, pertinently and significantly are dispositive of this, a very similar case.

McDonough, callister, crock-ETT, and WADE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint on grounds the evidence did not sustain an averment that plaintiff had acquired title to or an easement in a driveway by marshalling the title and use of predecessors. Affirmed.

For over half century the drive appeared to have been used by adjoining owners, all of whom claimed title to their respective properties through a common grantor, and all of whom, and their predecessors in title, belonged to the same family, until 1959, when the north tract was sold to plaintiff, who brought this action. Before that date, there is no evidence of anything but a cordial family use of the drive, as ordinarily would be the case with kinfolk. Any presumption as to adverse user for more than 20 years ¹ seems clearly to have been dispelled by evidence of permissive, neighborly use.²

The metes and bounds descriptions reflected in the abstracts of title were not destroyed by procedure or proof in this case, but on the contrary the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that any use of the subject drive, looking at the record favorably to appellant, was not adverse and consequently defendant’s record title remained inviolate. We think that after review thereof, we are constrained to and do hold that our pronouncements in Lunt v. Kitchens ³ and the authorities therein cited, pertinently and significantly are dispositive of this, a very similar case.

McDonough, callister, crock-ETT, and WADE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 P.2d 94, 15 Utah 2d 59, 1963 Utah LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rippentrop-v-pickering-utah-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack