MNV Holdings v. 200 South, 2021 UT App 76 (July 9, 2021)

This case involved whether a plaintiff could use different routes across the defendant’s land to prove a prescriptive easement claim. The plaintiff argued that it used three routes continuously during that time, but the district court held that the plaintiff failed to show use of any one particular route for the requisite 20 years. The court of appeals reversed, explaining: “under Utah law, a claimant’s use of multiple distinct routes over the servient estate does not, by itself, operate to defeat the claimant’s ability to meet the ‘continuous’ element of the prescriptive easement test. In such a situation, the court should analyze each claimed route on its own merits, and if the claimant can establish  continuous use of at least one route for the requisite prescriptive period, then the continuity element will have been met for at least that route.”