Barnes v. Kirk Jackson
44894
IdahoJan 9, 2018Background
- Bloxham owned a Parent water right (Spring Creek) adjudicated in 2004; the right was later split when he sold parts of the land.
- Jackson purchased part of Bloxham's land in April 2012 and filed a change of ownership; his portion became Jackson’s Right.
- Barnes purchased the remaining land (and its appurtenant water right) in January 2014.
- Barnes sued in August 2014 seeking declaration that Jackson’s Right was forfeited for five years of nonuse (2004–2012), based largely on Bloxham’s affidavit that he had not irrigated the portion that became Jackson’s land.
- District court granted summary judgment for Jackson, holding (1) alleged nonuse of the portion of land does not prove forfeiture of the Parent Right; (2) any forfeiture was excused by the statutory "no control" exception; and (3) even if forfeiture occurred, Barnes filed too early—resumption period restarted in 2012 when Jackson acquired the right and five years had not run by 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson’s Right was forfeited for 5+ years of nonuse | Barnes: Bloxham’s nonuse of the portion (2004–2012) caused forfeiture of the portion that became Jackson’s Right | Jackson: Forfeiture relates to the water right itself; Bloxham’s nonuse of that parcel did not forfeit the Parent Right or the portion later issued to Jackson; resumption and no-control defenses apply | Court: No error in granting summary judgment for Jackson — no forfeiture proven and statutory period restarted in 2012 |
| Applicability of the "no control" exception to alleged partial forfeiture | Barnes: "No control" inapplicable because water was legally available | Jackson: Nonuse was excused because water availability issues are circumstances beyond owner’s control | Held: "No control" exception applies; Barnes failed to show Bloxham withheld water that was available to him |
| Effect of resumption-of-use doctrine | Barnes: Resumption did not occur before a claim of right; Jackson’s later use cannot defeat forfeiture | Jackson: Jackson used the water beginning 2012; resumption occurred before any valid claim of right by Barnes | Held: Resumption doctrine supports Jackson; Barnes’ 2014 suit was premature because five-year nonuse had not run after 2012 |
| Whether Barnes may assert any alleged claim of right previously "made" by Bloxham | Barnes: Can step into predecessor’s claim and assert prior claim of right against Jackson | Jackson: Predecessor cannot be both forfeiting owner and a junior appropriator asserting a claim; no statutory support | Held: Court rejects Barnes’ theory as illogical and unsupported; an appropriator cannot rely on water he previously forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Sagewillow, Inc. v. IDWR, 138 Idaho 831, 70 P.3d 669 (clarifies resumption-of-use requires resumption before a third party's claim of right)
- Idaho Ground Water Ass'n v. IDWR, 160 Idaho 119, 369 P.3d 897 (senior rights quantified subject to availability of water)
- Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 982 P.2d 917 (forfeitures disfavored under Idaho law)
- Carrington v. Crandall, 65 Idaho 525, 147 P.2d 1009 (early articulation of resumption-of-use principle)
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 291 P.3d 1000 (summary judgment standard on appeal)