Allen Family Trust v. Holt
2019 UT App 197
| Utah Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Water collection and conveyance from Garner Springs (Upper and Lower) and Dan’s Camp to Section 34 began in the 1880s; an 1948 Ogden River Decree recognized a right to convey that water via an “unnamed ditch.”
- The Allens trace their right to that decree; the conveyance crossed land later owned by SITLA and then sold to Still Standing Stables and ultimately Millennial Partners North (MPN).
- Ross Allen (and descendants) installed a pipe system in 1979 following the historic ditch; Ross’s 70% water interest passed to David Allen; Scott’s 30% interest passed to his children (the Millennial parties) but they never personally used the water.
- MPN (servient owner) obstructed access after acquiring the land, including fencing and cutting pipes; prior litigation produced a stipulated judgment recognizing David’s water right and ownership of the conveyance system.
- At bench trial the district court found the Allens had an 1866 Mining Act water-conveyance easement (including Dan’s Camp) and that MPN interfered, but it declined to find the Millennial parties’ water right forfeited for nonuse.
- On appeal the court affirmed the easement and interference findings but reversed the district court’s refusal to find forfeiture, holding the Millennial parties forfeited their water right for nonuse and awarding appellate attorney fees to the Allens.
Issues
| Issue | Allens' Argument | Millennial Parties' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dan’s Camp and Garner Springs are covered diversion points for an 1866 Mining Act easement | Dan’s Camp was the location of the unnamed ditch referenced in the Ogden River Decree and pre-1896 facilities establish an 1866 Act easement | Denied Dan’s Camp predated statehood/ditch was built later (1920s); disputed location/timing | Court upheld district court: evidence (decree, testimony, prior stipulation) supports finding ditches pre-1896 and easement under the 1866 Act |
| Whether the district court properly applied the 1866 Mining Act test (valid state right + facilities on unreserved lands) | Ogden River Decree supplies valid state right; Dan’s Camp facilities were on unreserved land and predate statehood | Argued facilities not pre-statehood, so 1866 Act does not apply | Court held both elements satisfied; trial court’s fact findings not clearly erroneous and legal conclusion correct |
| Whether fixtures (pipe system) escheated to SITLA/SSS and whether district court abused reconsidering summary judgment | Allens: easement preexisted SITLA, so fixtures remain easement-holder property and never vested in SITLA/SSS/MPN | Millennial parties: SITLA lease escheat provision made unremoved fixtures SITLA property, which later transferred | Court affirmed district court’s reversal of its earlier escheat ruling: easement predated SITLA, so SITLA could not transfer ownership of the system |
| Whether MPN’s cutting of pipes/fencing constituted interference and whether attorney fees were appropriate | Interference with established right-of-way occurred; attorney fees authorized for prevailing party under Utah law | Argued no existing right to interfere with (if no easement) | Court affirmed finding of interference and award of attorney fees to Allens |
| Whether the Millennial parties forfeited their water right for nonuse under Utah Code §73-1-4 | Allens: Millennial parties did not beneficially use the water for 7+ years (1994–2011); nonuse proven by clear and convincing evidence | Millennial parties: Allens were using water by agreement with Ross/usage avoided forfeiture; disputed evidentiary showing | Court reversed district court: unrebutted evidence showed ≥7 years nonuse; Millennial parties forfeited their water right (Allens proved nonuse by clear and convincing evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U.S. 453 (discussing purpose of the 1866 Mining Act)
- Bear Lake & River Waterworks & Irrigation Co. v. Garland, 164 U.S. 1 (elements for recognizing pre-statehood water conveyance easement)
- Roth v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (requiring valid state water rights and facilities on unreserved lands for an 1866 Act easement)
- Eskelsen v. Town of Perry, 819 P.2d 770 (Utah) (permitting proof of pre-statehood water use by best available evidence)
- Judd v. Bowen, 428 P.3d 1032 (Utah) (appellate deference on highly fact-dependent easement determinations)
- Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City, 387 P.3d 978 (Utah) (district court discretion to reconsider interlocutory rulings)
- Stern v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy, 274 P.3d 935 (Utah) (easement holders may make improvements that remain their property)
- Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Carlson, 464 P.2d 387 (Utah) (trade fixtures remain personalty and do not become realty)
- Sullivan v. Northern Spy Mining Co., 40 P. 709 (Utah) (successive owners take land subject to existing water easements)
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik, 438 P.3d 913 (Utah App.) (standard of review for mixed fact-law forfeiture questions)