Harrison v. SPAH Family Ltd., 2020 UT 22 (May 8, 2020)

In affirming summary judgment in this prescriptive easement case, the supreme court clarified what is required to satisfy the “continuous” element of a prescriptive easement.  Acquiescence by the underlying landowner is not required.  Thus, “a landowner’s grant of permission to the prescriptive user will not work an interruption unless the user submits to the title of the landowner by accepting the license offered.  [I]t is the prescriptive user’s submission to the landowner that interrupts the prescriptive period—not the owner’s grant of permission.”