Lobato v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc · 2002 · Property

71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2002)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyprofits a prendreappurtenant easementimplied servitudesprescriptionestoppelprior useattempted but imperfect grant

Facts

The plaintiffs are successors in title to original settlers on the Sangre de Cristo grant in southern Colorado, who for more than one hundred years used the mountain tract now called the Taylor Ranch for grazing livestock, gathering firewood and timber, and also for hunting, fishing, and recreation until Jack Taylor fenced them out in 1960. In 1863, Carlos Beaubien executed a Spanish-language document stating that all inhabitants would have enjoyment of pastures, water, firewood, and timber, and the following year the Gilpin agreement required confirmation of previously conceded settlement rights. Taylor's own deed stated that he took subject to claims of local people by prescription or otherwise to rights of pasturage, wood, lumber, and so-called settlement rights. The trial court found long, uninterrupted historical use and that settlers could not have survived without using the mountain area, but still rejected the landowners' theories.

Issue

Whether the landowners, as successors to the original settlers, held enforceable rights to enter and use the Taylor Ranch for traditional settlement uses. More specifically, whether those rights could arise under Mexican law, by prescription, or through express or implied grant, including implied easements in the form of profits à prendre.

Rule

Mexican law is not a source of these claims where permanent settlement on the grant began after the land had been ceded to the United States. Although the Beaubien Document failed as an express grant, Colorado recognizes implied servitudes in the form of profits as well as access easements, and a prescriptive easement may arise not only from adverse use but also from use pursuant to an intended but imperfectly created servitude. Easements by estoppel and from prior use may also be implied where the elements of foreseeability and reliance, or prior unity, pre-severance use, permanence, reasonable necessity, and no contrary intent, are satisfied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In northern New Mexico, Mateo Ruiz owns a 60-acre farm that was carved out of a larger ranch in 1890. At the time of severance, the ranch owner signed a one-page memorandum promising all farm-settlers access to the upper slopes for grazing, cutting house timber, and collecting firewood, but the writing failed to satisfy conveyancing formalities. For more than 80 years, Mateo's predecessors openly used the upper tract for those purposes until the current owner, Lark Mesa Holdings, locked the gate.

If Mateo sues to establish a right to continue those traditional uses, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. A prescriptive easement requires open or notorious use, continuation without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and use that was either adverse or made pursuant to an intended but imperfectly created servitude. The majority held adversity is not required in all cases; long use pursuant to an attempted but ineffective grant can support prescription. It also rejected any blanket rule that profits such as timber and firewood must always be express.