Barnes v. Jackson

Citation163 Idaho 194,408 P.3d 1266
Decision Date09 January 2018
Docket NumberDocket No. 44894
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Parties Chad BARNES and Jane Barnes, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kirk JACKSON, an individual, Defendant-Respondent.

163 Idaho 194
408 P.3d 1266

Chad BARNES and Jane Barnes, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kirk JACKSON, an individual, Defendant-Respondent.

Docket No. 44894

Supreme Court of Idaho, Twin Falls, November 2017 Term.

Filed: January 9, 2018


Holden, Kidwell, Hahn & Crapo, PLLC, Idaho Falls, attorneys for appellant. D. Andrew Rawlings argued.

Merrill and Merrill, Chartered, Pocatello, attorneys for respondent. Mary E. Shea argued.

JONES, Justice.

163 Idaho 196

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from a district court's order granting summary judgment and dismissing a lawsuit brought by Chad and Jane Barnes ("Barnes1 ") against Kirk Jackson ("Jackson"). In 2014, Barnes filed suit against Jackson seeking a declaration of forfeiture as to Jackson's water right ("Jackson's Right"). Barnes alleged that Jackson's Right was unused for the five-year statutory period and was therefore forfeited. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Jackson. We affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Craig Bloxham ("Bloxham") was the sole owner of a water right (the "Parent Right"), which was issued to him in the Snake River Basin Adjudication ("SRBA") in 2004. Bloxham was the predecessor-in-interest to both parties in this appeal, i.e. , Jackson's Right and Barnes’ water right ("Barnes’ Right") were created by the splitting of the Parent Right. The Parent Right was diverted from a source known as Spring Creek.

On April 26, 2012, Jackson purchased a portion of Bloxham's property with the intent to live there and plant a twenty acre orchard to be irrigated by Spring Creek. Because Jackson did not purchase the entire Bloxham property, the water right appurtenant to the property was split in proportion to the division of land. On May 31, 2012, Jackson filed a Notice of Change of Water Right Ownership with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (the "IDWR"). The Parent Right was split into Water Right No. 29-14031, which Bloxham retained, and Jackson's Right. On January 31, 2014, Barnes purchased the remaining portion of Bloxham's property and obtained the water right appurtenant thereto (Barnes’ Right).

On August 29, 2014, Barnes filed a Complaint wherein he sought a declaration of forfeiture as to Jackson's Right. On January 15, 2016, Barnes moved for summary judgment arguing that Jackson's Right was not put to beneficial use from 2004 to 2012 and should therefore be forfeited. This assertion was based on the affidavit of Bloxham, who stated that he had not irrigated that portion of land, which later became Jackson's land, from 2004 to 2012. On November 17, 2016, the district court issued a Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Decision").

In the Summary Judgment Decision, the district court began by analyzing whether five years of nonuse had accrued on the Parent Right. The district court rejected Barnes’ assertion that Jackson's Right should be forfeited because the Parent Right was not used to irrigate the land appurtenant to Jackson's Right from 2004 to 2012. The district court stated that any kind of forfeiture, even partial, relates to the water right's nonuse, not the extent of the use/nonuse within the property to which the water right is appurtenant. Thus, simply because Bloxham chose not to irrigate the land that would later become Jackson's property does not mean that Bloxham forfeited the portion of the Parent Right that would later become

408 P.3d 1269
163 Idaho 197

Jackson's Right. The district court continued, reasoning that because Bloxham never forfeited the Parent Right, the statutory period restarted in 2012, when Jackson obtained his right. However, because that five-year period would need to run until April 2017, the five-year period had not accrued when Barnes filed the Complaint on August 29, 2014.

The district court acknowledged that its holding was dispositive, but nonetheless addressed Jackson's resumption-of-use defense. The district court explained that, under the resumption-of-use doctrine, statutory forfeiture is not effective if, after five years of nonuse, an appropriator resumes use prior to the assertion of a claim of right by a junior appropriator. The district court noted that Jackson had used the water as early as 2012—two years before Barnes purchased his property; therefore, Barnes was barred from asserting that he had relied upon Jackson's unused water since 2012. The district court acknowledged Barnes’ related argument—that he was somehow connected to his predecessor in interest, Bloxham, and therefore could assert Bloxham's claim of right. However, the district court noted that there was no statutory or legal basis for the position. A Judgment was issued, which dismissed the case with prejudice.

On December 1, 2016, Barnes filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on January 25, 2017. On March 3, 2017, Barnes filed a notice of appeal.

III. ISSUE ON APPEAL

1. Did the district court err by granting summary judgment in Jackson's favor?

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion." Arregui v. Gallegos-Main , 153 Idaho 801, 804, 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." [Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure] 56(c).... "If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Lapham v. Stewart , 137 Idaho 582, 585, 51 P.3d 396, 399 (2002).

Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones , 158 Idaho 846, 850, 353 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2015) (quoting Conner v. Hodges , 157 Idaho 19, 23, 333 P.3d 130, 134 (2014) ).

When an action will be tried before the court without a jury, the judge is not constrained to draw inferences in favor of the party opposing a motion for summary judgment but rather the trial judge is free to arrive at the most probable inferences to be drawn from uncontroverted evidentiary facts.

Loomis v. City of Hailey , 119 Idaho 434, 807 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1991) (citing Riverside Dev. Co. v. Ritchie , 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (1982) ; Blackmon v. Zufelt , 108 Idaho 469, 700 P.2d 91 (Ct.App.1985) ).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT