Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.
2014 MT 167
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Two linked Montana water-right adjudication cases involve Duncan, Skelton, and Pondera diverts from South Fork, Dupuyer Creek into Gansman Coulee for irrigation in the Teton River Basin.
- Master quantified rights and concluded 1912 and 1931 flume capacities limited historic use, creating implied rights with a 1931 priority.
- Pondera prepared historical documents in the early 1900s, some in anticipation of litigation; their admissibility as ancient documents was challenged.
- Chief Water Judge replaced Master’s capacity findings due to misapplication of flume measurements and lack of slope data for 1931; he adopted replacement findings.
- Various NOAs (1895 B.P. Clark, 1902 Armedia Clark, 1904 Mustard/Roberts/Deschenau, 1906 Walter Clark, 1912 Flacker) and land transfers shaped whether rights were perfected, abandoned, or preserved.
- The court ultimately affirmed the Water Court’s order with a concurrence dissenting only on the flume-capacity analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ancient documents prepared for litigation were admissible | Duncan/Skelton: documents self-serving; inadmissible | Water Court allowed ancient documents; not per se inadmissible | Admissible under ancient documents exception |
| Whether Master correctly determined historical flume capacities | Master’s 1912/1931 capacity figures plausible | Findings misapprehend evidence; rely on wrong dimensions/ slope | Chief Water Judge replacement findings upheld; Master’s capacity findings rejected |
| Whether portions of claimants’ rights were abandoned or never perfected | Some rights perfected; not abandoned | Evidence shows long non-use and intent to abandon | Rights exceeded by flume capacity abandoned; others abandoned or never perfected affirmed. |
| Whether claimants acquired rights by adverse possession | Adverse possession could vest some shares | No such prescriptive rights proven | Adverse possession findings upheld; no rights acquired by prescription |
Key Cases Cited
- Heavirland v. State, 311 P.3d 813 (Mont. 2013) (clear-error standard; substantial evidence required)
- Desaye, 250 Mont. 320 (1991) (test for clearly erroneous findings; Desaye framework)
- Interstate Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Desaye, 250 Mont. 320 (1991) (framework for reviewing non-jury fact findings)
- Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214 (1988) (standard for reviewing factual inferences; deference to trial court)