Bresee v. Barton
387 P.3d 536
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Bresees purchased a parcel in 2009 surrounded on three sides by the Bartons; deed included only a 50-foot ingress/egress/utilities easement and said nothing about water-line access.
- Bartons own reservoir shares and operate an on-site irrigation well; both sources are conveyed to fields via a buried mainline on Barton land; Bartons sometimes switch to well water when reservoir supply is low.
- Bresees own eleven Parowan Reservoir Company shares but had no recorded physical access; predecessors had exchange-of-use agreements allowing access via the Bartons’ mainline; those agreements ended after Bresees purchased the parcel.
- In April 2012 Mr. Bresee trespassed onto Barton land, installed a T-connection into the Bartons’ mainline to divert water; Bartons removed it and sued/ counterclaimed; Bresees sued asserting various easement and quiet-title theories (including eminent domain).
- District court granted Bartons’ summary judgment dismissing Bresees’ claims (Bresees did not appear at the hearing but had submitted written opposition); denied Bresees’ late motion to amend the complaint; after bench trial found Bresees’ claims lacked merit and were brought in bad faith and awarded Bartons attorney fees under Utah Code § 78B-5-825.
- This Court affirmed the summary judgment and denial of leave to amend, upheld the bad‑faith fee award, and remanded only to determine reasonable appellate fees for Bartons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bresee) | Defendant's Argument (Barton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because Bresees were not allowed to present oral argument at the MSJ hearing | Bresees: counsel miscalendared hearing time; proceeding in their absence denied due process and a new trial was warranted | Bartons: Bresees received proper notice and had fully briefed opposition in writing; written submissions satisfied opportunity to be heard | Court: No due-process violation; written briefing and post‑hearing Rule 59 motion provided opportunity to be heard; denial affirmed |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the eminent‑domain/irrigation‑easement claim | Bresees: disputed factual assertions regarding water ownership, exchange agreements, and sufficiency of water resources; ownership of reservoir shares allows access without interfering with Bartons | Bartons: condemnation would cause "considerable interference" with their water use because reservoir supply is insufficient and they must pump well water; evidence supported lack of capacity | Court: Bresees’ affidavit contained stricken legal conclusions/hearsay; they failed to rebut Bartons’ interference evidence; summary judgment proper |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying Bresees’ motion to amend (filed after court’s 20‑day cut‑off) | Bresees: denial relied solely on untimeliness; court should have analyzed timeliness, justification, and prejudice per Kelly | Bartons: motion was untimely, discovery was not pursued, motion filed after MSJ briefing, and granting would prejudice Bartons near trial | Court: Denial was within discretion after considering procedural history, delay, lack of justification, and prejudice; affirmed |
| Whether attorney fees under Utah Code § 78B‑5‑825 were improper because Bresees’ claims had some legal basis or were brought in good faith | Bresees: statutory eminent‑domain claim provided a legal basis and they subjectively believed claim was valid | Bartons: claims lacked factual basis for essential elements (interference, ownership, etc.); Bresees acted without investigating and even trespassed prior to litigation | Court: Fact findings supported that claims were without merit and brought in bad faith (objective lack of factual basis and absence of honest belief); fee award affirmed; appellate fees remanded for calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalton v. Wadley, 355 P.2d 69 (Utah 1960) (eminent‑domain irrigation right limited by prohibition on interfering with defendant’s water rights)
- Still Standing Stable, LLC v. Allen, 122 P.3d 556 (Utah 2005) (bad‑faith fee test: honest belief, no unconscionable advantage, no intent to hinder/delay/defraud)
- Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 306 (Utah 1998) (claims may be meritless where facts contradict asserted basis; relevant in bad‑faith analysis)
- Migliore v. Livingston Fin., LLC, 347 P.3d 394 (Utah 2015) (absence of factual basis supports conclusion claim lacks merit for fee statute)
- Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) ("without merit" is question of law; bad‑faith is question of fact)