Berman v. Yarbrough
2011 UT 79
| Utah | 2011Background
- Berman owns Utah and Wyoming water rights used on his Wyoming property and relies on China Lake in Utah; the China Lake water is used in Wyoming.
- Wyoming recognized 181 acre-feet under a 1901 priority and 87 acre-feet under a 1985 priority for Berman's Utah rights in Wyoming; Wyoming rights in dispute were not at issue in this case.
- Wyoming officials later deemed parts of Berman's Utah rights were not properly documented and required a secondary permit, which Berman did not file; Wyoming then delivered only 87 acre-feet.
- In Utah court, Berman sought declaratory judgment quantifying Utah rights and injunctive relief to deliver water; the Utah court quantified rights but reserved enforcement and did not order Wyoming officials to deliver water.
- Two memoranda (Nov 2006 and Jun 2007) quantified rights but explicitly declined to enforce in Wyoming; no directive to Wyoming officials was issued; in 2009–2010 a Wyoming official denied a second fill, prompting the Motion to Enforce.
- Berman appealed the denial of the Motion to Enforce, challenging whether the court could enforce a judgment against nonparties and whether the motion was procedurally proper; the Utah Supreme Court held the motion was procedurally barred as the declaratory judgment contained no unequivocal directive to enforce against Wyoming officials or nonparties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to enforce can address matters beyond the underlying judgment. | Berman argues the declaratory judgment implicitly requires enforcement. | The district court held enforcement beyond the judgment's scope. | Procedurally barred; enforcement cannot go beyond the judgment. |
| Whether the declaratory judgment contained an unequivocal mandate to enforce. | Declaratory language implied delivery by Wyoming officials. | The court declined to issue a directive; statements were not unequivocal. | No unequivocal mandate; enforcement not authorized. |
| Whether enforcement could target nonparties to the declaratory judgment. | Yarbrough's subordinates and supervisor should be bound by the judgment. | Nonparties cannot be bound by enforcement from the judgment. | Enforcement against nonparties was beyond the judgment's scope. |
| Whether the Motion to Enforce could be treated as a petition for injunctive relief under Utah law. | Motion should be considered under 78B-6-406 for further relief. | Motion was not styled as injunctive relief and thus not proper under 78B-6-406. | Not treated as injunctive relief; procedurally improper under enforcement rules. |
| Whether the Utah Code allows relief based on a declaratory judgment to cure procedural deficiencies. | Section 78B-6-406 supports further relief based on a declaratory judgment. | Even with 78B-6-406, underlying judgment lacks unequivocal directive. | Section 78B-6-406 does not cure the lack of an unequivocal directive; motion improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey v. Johanns, 494 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 2007) (enforcement limited to judgments' four corners; beyond scope no relief)
- Korn v. Gulotta, 186 A.D.2d 195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 1993) (motion to enforce improper when no unequivocal mandate)
- APA Excelsior III, L.P. v. Windley, 329 F.Supp.2d 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (motions to enforce inappropriate when relief beyond scope)