Hark v. Quirk Cattle
2017 MT 201N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Quirk Cattle Company (QCC) and Pearl Hark (Hark) hold competing senior water-right claims on Indian Creek; central dispute is priority between Hark’s 1890 claim and QCC’s 1894 claim. QCC’s 1884 claim was undisputed.
- In 1985 QCC and Hark executed and filed a brief Water Use Agreement stating QCC had senior rights and that parties historically shared surplus flows; QCC withdrew its objection to Hark’s 1890 claim.
- The Agreement was incorporated into the Water Court’s Temporary Preliminary Decree (1987) and a Water Master report; a 2015 Water Court order concluded the 1890 claim was subject to the Agreement. That 2015 order was not appealed.
- In 2016 Hark sought distribution based on the 1890 priority; the Water Commissioner denied the request, allowing QCC to fulfill its 1894 claim first, citing the Agreement.
- Hark filed a dissatisfied water user complaint; the priority question was certified to the Water Court, which granted summary judgment for QCC, holding the Agreement subordinated Hark’s Indian Creek rights to QCC’s rights. Hark appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1985 Agreement subordinates Hark’s 1890 Indian Creek right to QCC’s Indian Creek rights | Hark contends the Agreement does not deprive her 1890 claim of priority and disputes its enforceability as to that claim | QCC argues the Agreement clearly acknowledges its senior rights and that Hark’s claim was made subject to the Agreement when QCC withdrew its objection | Court held the Agreement unambiguously subordinated Hark’s Indian Creek rights to QCC’s rights and affirmed summary judgment for QCC |
| Whether the Water Court abused discretion by denying Hark’s Rule 56(f) discovery request | Hark claimed she needed discovery to oppose summary judgment | QCC asserted the dispute had long history and Hark delayed asserting alternative interpretation | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery |
| Whether the Water Court abused discretion by denying Hark’s motion to strike parts of QCC’s reply brief | Hark argued portions were improper and should be stricken | QCC maintained reply was appropriate | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to strike |
| Whether the scope of the Water Court’s order improperly included or excluded certain claims (76D140171-00; 76D118115-00) | Hark argued inclusion/exclusion errors regarding which claims were covered | QCC argued the order properly applied only to Indian Creek rights covered by the Agreement | Court held inclusion of 76D140171-00 was proper to the extent it is an Indian Creek right covered by the Agreement; 76D118115-00 (Derozier Creek) was unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Stokes, 338 Mont. 118, 163 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2007) (unambiguous contract language must be applied as written)
- Envtl. Contractors, LLC v. Moon, 295 Mont. 268, 983 P.2d 390 (Mont. 1999) (trial courts have discretion to control discovery and decisions on Rule 56(f) requests)