Innis v. Innis, 23CA1970

This case concerns the ownership of water rights appurtenant to property at 2110 Desert Hills Road (the "2110 property") in Grand Junction, Colorado, involving family members Norma J. Innis and her son Dain D. Innis.
The 2110 property was originally placed in joint tenancy (among others, including Dain and Norma) by a warranty deed that expressly included water rights in 2005. In 2016, Norma signed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest in the property to Dain to facilitate his access to a mortgage.
The quitclaim deed did not specifically mention water rights. After the transaction, Dain added his wife Lynnette Y. Innis to the title and obtained a mortgage.
Norma later sought to restore her joint interest in the property and/or its water rights, asserting that the transfer was only for the purpose of securing a loan and that there was no intent to convey the water rights.
The district court found for Norma with respect to the water rights, quieting title jointly between Dain and Norma, and awarded Norma monetary relief for unjust enrichment, but found the deed transfer of the land itself valid.
On appeal, Dain and Lynn contested the court's determination on the water rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the 2016 quitclaim deed transfer water rights to Dain?	Norma: The quitclaim deed was not intended to convey water rights, only to temporarily facilitate a loan.	Dain: The deed's general language about appurtenances conveyed water rights.	No, because the deed lacked specific language and water rights are separate from land; intent and context weighed against transfer.
Are the water rights incidental and necessary to the 2110 property and therefore transferred?	Norma: Water rights were not discussed or intended to be transferred; the transaction was temporary.	Dain: Water rights are necessary/incidental for property enjoyment, thus transferred by default.	No, landscaping/recreation use is not necessarily "incidental and necessary" per Colorado law; court found insufficient basis for such transfer.
Did Lynn's rights as a joint owner get infringed by the water decree?	Norma: No infringement; Lynn's argument was not preserved at trial.	Lynn: The decree infringes her joint ownership rights.	Argument not preserved below, so not addressed by the appellate court.
Was the district court's determination final/appealable?	By September 2023, all damage and interest issues were resolved.	Dain: Challenged jurisdiction/timeliness.	Appeal timely as September 2023 order made judgment final.

Board of County Commissioners v. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch, 45 P.3d 693 (Colo. 2002) (clarifies water rights are separate from land interests in Colorado)
Nielson v. Newmyer, 228 P.2d 456 (Colo. 1951) (holding that land and water rights can be transferred separately by deed)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Janitell Farms, Inc., 609 P.2d 1116 (Colo. App. 1980) (explains that a water right is a property right separate and apart from the land)
Wanamaker Ditch Co. v. Crane, 288 P.2d 339 (Colo. 1955) (water rights defined by the express terms of the deed)
Fox v. 1-10, Ltd., 936 P.2d 580 (Colo. App. 1998) (parties’ omission of language in deed shows intent not to convey particular interests)