property claim in Utah

2017Our law, as noted, provides that the parties’ “status, including their property rights, reverts to what it had been before the action was filed.” Nelson, 592 P.2d at 597 .

2017Our law, as noted, provides that the parties' "status, including their property rights, reverts to what it had been before the action was filed." Nelson , 592 P.2d at 597 .

2024It made sense, then, for the district court to order the lis pendens removed once it had ruled that the REPC was unenforceable and that Regal would therefore be unable to obtain title to or possession of the Property. ¶59 But we have now reversed the court’s ruling that Regal’s specific performance claim is invalid and have thereby 20230368-CA 31 2024 UT App 95 Regal RealSource v. Enlaw reinvigorated that claim, which is a cause of action that unquestionably implicates “title to” the Property.

2024First, they ask for a judicial order—a declaratory judgment— stating that Grantsville’s annexation of the Property was in violation of the Annexation Code and was therefore “without authority, contrary to law, . . . and void.” Second, they seek judicial review of Grantsville’s annexation ordinance pursuant to MLUDMA, which allows an “adversely affected party” to seek judicial review of “a land use decision.” See Utah Code § 10-9a- 20220760-CA 19 2024 UT App 126 Erda Cmty. Ass’n v. Grantsville City 801(1), (2)(a).

2024And UAMPS emphasizes that Benzer—despite awareness of the Easement and the presence of the guy wires—built a house within the boundaries of the Easement, even though the Easement Documents clearly prohibit the “erect[ion of] buildings and/or structures within” the Easement and even though the Easement 20210935-CA 33 2024 UT App 35 Utah Associated Mun.

2018The supreme court determined that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and had no claim to title "unless his right to have the deed cancelled [was] established." Id. at 376 .

2018The court recognized that "actions by which nothing is sought except to remove a cloud from or to quiet the title to real property as against apparent or stale claims are not barred by the statute of limitations," but the limitations period "does apply to actions in which the principal purpose is to obtain some affirmative relief." Id.

2016Because this finding alone is sufficient to invalidate the lis pen-dens, Husband cannot show that the district court erred by failing to nevertheless continue on to an analysis of "the probable validity of the real property claim contained in the pending action." See Butler, Crockett & Walsh, 2013 UT App 30, ¶ 28 , 297 P.3d 38 . 1 43 We conclude that Husband has failed to demonstrate error in the district court's decision to release the lis pendens.

2016Because this finding alone is sufficient to invalidate the lis pen-dens, Husband cannot show that the district court erred by failing to nevertheless continue on to an analysis of "the probable validity of the real property claim contained in the pending action." See Butler, Crockett & Walsh, 2013 UT App 30, ¶ 28 , 297 P.3d 38 . 1 43 We conclude that Husband has failed to demonstrate error in the district court's decision to release the lis pendens.

2010Although the Uniform Commercial Code has been amended since the decision in Webb v. Interstate Land Corp., 920 P.2d 1187 (Utah 1996), the current version is substantively identical with respect io the definition of encumbrance, compare Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9a-102(32) (2009), with id. § T0OA-9-105(1)(g) (1990). 11 .

1900And even if Mrs. Steed did know of this agreement but entered into possession of the property under a claim of ownership, and she and her grantees paid all taxes assessed-against it, and continued in peaceful, open, notorious and adverse possession under a claim of right for a period of seven years before the commencement of the action, and during said time the character of her claim and possession was known to Snow, and the great weight of the evidence shows - such to be the case, she and her grantee acquired title by adverse possession under the statute. , Armstrong v. Kisteed’s Lessee, 5 In