Intermountain Resources v. Jorgensen et al

Filing 247

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 242 Motion for Clarification; granting 244 Motion to Dismiss Party Recreational Lands Unlimited. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/13/2011. (ce)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART RLU’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AND
GRANTING RLU’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

vs.

J. NEAL JORGENSEN; DIANE
JORGENSEN; and RECREATIONAL
LANDS UNLIMITED, INC.,

Case No. 2:08-CV-80 TS

Defendants / Third-Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
PINE CREEK RANCH PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Third-Party Defendant.
The Court has before it Third-Party Plaintiff Recreational Lands Unlimited, Inc.’s
(“RLU”) Motion for Clarification1 and RLU’s Motion for Dismissal of Claims by Intermountain

1

Docket No. 242

Resources, LLC Against RLU.2 Having considered the Motions, the Court issues the following
Order.
I. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
On January 19, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of RLU on its claim for
prescriptive easement over the portion of the Bob Draper Road which runs over Third-Party
Defendant Pine Creek Ranch Property Owners Association’s (“Pine Creek”) property.3 Prior to
trial, the Court held that Utah law required the determination of whether the elements of a
prescriptive easement have been met be submitted to the jury. Following the announcement of
the jury’s verdict in favor of RLU on its prescriptive easement claim, the Court ordered briefing
on the scope of RLU’s prescriptive easement and, shortly thereafter, issued its Memorandum
Decision and Order on Scope of Prescriptive Easement on April 5, 2011 (“the April Order”).4
In the April Order, the Court found that RLU’s prescriptive easement was “limited to
conveying no more than 150,000 board feet per year via the Bob Draper Road across Pine
Creek’s property and to using equipment no larger than that employed by the Drapers and related
parties during the prescriptive period.”5 The Court further found that “the evidence at trial
clearly established that RLU’s prescriptive period includes RLU’s historical usage of the Bob

2

Docket No. 244.

3

See Docket No. 234.

4

Docket No. 241.

5

Id. at 7.
2

Draper Road for hunting, recreation, sheepherding, property access, showing lots to prospective
buyers, checking and maintaining utilities, and construction of cabins.”6
RLU now moves the Court for clarification of certain aspects of the April Order.
Specifically, RLU requests the Court find that the following equipment was used during the
prescriptive period: (1) full-sized logging trucks, (2) caterpillars comparable to a “D8” for
logging purposes, and (3) construction equipment ordinarily used for the construction of cabins,
including caterpillars, backhoes, cement trucks, and equipment trucks.
The Court finds no need to clarify the April Order as to the use of full-sized logging
trucks. In the April Order, the Court expressly noted that “the Drapers used an 80,000 pound,
eighteen wheel logging truck” during the prescriptive period.7 In that same Order, the Court held
that RLU’s prescriptive easement includes equipment employed by the Drapers during the
prescriptive period.8 The Court sees no need to extrapolate the connection between these two
findings.
Similarly, the Court finds no need to clarify the April Order as to the particular kinds of
construction equipment which may be used for cabin construction. In the April Order, the Court
found that RLU’s prescriptive easement includes RLU’s historical use of the Bob Draper road for
construction of cabins.9 This holding necessarily includes any equipment traditionally used by
RLU in cabin construction and no further clarification is necessary.

6

Id.

7

Id. at 2.

8

Id. at 7.

9

Id. at 7.
3

The Court will, however, grant RLU’s request for the Court to clarify the size of
caterpillar which may be used under its prescriptive easement across Pine Creek’s property.
From the Court’s review of the April Order, this aspect of RLU’s easement was not discussed
and an express finding by this Court will likely avoid future conflict among the parties.
At trial, the undisputed testimony of Barry Draper was that he, and related parties, used
an International HD25 caterpillar, which is comparable in size to a D8 caterpillar.10 Thus, as the
Court has found that RLU’s easement is limited to “using equipment no larger than that
employed by the Drapers and related parties during the prescriptive period,” the Court finds that
RLU is limited to using caterpillars no larger than a D8.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS
RLU further moves the Court to dismiss all claims asserted by Intermountain Resources,
LLC against RLU because such claims have been previously settled by the parties. The Court
will, therefore, grant RLU’s Motion to Dismiss, with each party to bear its own costs and
attorney’s fees.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that RLU’s Motion for Clarification (Docket No. 242) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further
ORDERED that RLU’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 244) is GRANTED.

10

In its response, Pine Creek disputes whether an International HD25 is actually the
equivalent of a D8, but this issue was not disputed at trial and the Court, therefore, will accept
Mr. Draper’s testimony.
4

DATED July 13, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

5