Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil
2013 MT 87
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Franz Weinheimer filed a 1971 notice of appropriation for 2,500 gpm from an unnamed water course with a point in Sec. 4, T14N R16E, priority 1900; the Ranch later acquired the claim.
- The Ranch (Weinheimer Ranch, Inc.) holds Claim 41S-W-100200-00, filed Dec. 7, 1981, tracking the 1971 notice; ownership transferred to the Ranch in 1991.
- The Montana Water Court entered a Temporary Preliminary Decree in 1984 providing Pospisil a priority of 1897 and the Ranch a priority of 1900, both from Odenwald Coulee (the listed source) in Section 4.
- The Ranch filed a motion (and supplement) to amend the Claim’s historical right, priority date, and source in 2002–2003; Pospisil objected to the historical right and priority amendment.
- The Ranch sought to rely on Adrian Odenwald’s 1896 Notice listing Sec. 9 and on the 1969 Resources Survey suggesting an 1882 priority, arguing Odenwald mistakenly described the point of diversion as Sec. 9 and that the true source was Sec. 4.
- The Water Master, and then the Water Court, denied the motion, finding no substantial evidence to support amending the historical right or priority date; the court rejected the inference that Odenwald misunderstood Sec. 9 vs Sec. 4 and held the Ranch failed to prove the required substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record required an inference of a mistaken Section 9 listing | Weinheimer Ranch argues Odenwald listed Sec. 9 by mistake and the record supports inferring Sec. 4. | Pospisil contends the Water Master properly did not infer a mistake and kept the 1896 notice as written. | No inference required; record insufficient to compel inference. |
| Whether the Water Court properly concluded Ranch lacked substantial evidence to amend | Ranch asserts substantial evidence exists (1896 notice, Resources Survey) to support amendment. | Pospisil argues evidence is insufficient to overcome prima facie claim and presumption. | Yes, substantial evidence lacking; amendment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interstate Prod. Credit Ass’n v. DeSaye, 250 Mont. 320 (1991 MT) (clear-error standard forWater Court findings; three-prong test noted)
- Fegles Constr. Co. v. McLaughlin Constr. Co., 205 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1953) (review of fact-finder inferences; substitute not allowed without clear error)
- Smith v. Denniff, 60 P. 398 (1900 MT) (recognizes that water sources may be outside property boundaries; implied diligence)