In re Quigley

• Decision Date: 14 November 2017
• Docket Number: DA 16-0629
• Citation: In re Quigley, 389 Mont. 283, 405 P.3d 627, 2017 MT 278 (Mont. 2017)
• Parties: James C. QUIGLEY and Linda M.S. Quigley, Claimants, Objectors and Appellants, Richard L. Beck, Claimant, Counter-Objector and Appellee, Avista Corporation, Objector.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

389 Mont. 283

405 P.3d 627

2017 MT 278

James C. QUIGLEY and Linda M.S. Quigley, Claimants, Objectors and Appellants,

Richard L. Beck, Claimant, Counter-Objector and Appellee,

Avista Corporation, Objector.

DA 16-0629

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: September 6, 2017

Decided: November 14, 2017

For Appellants: Ryan K. Mattick, Moore, O'Connell & Refling, PC, Bozeman, Montana

For Appellee: John E. Bloomquist, Bloomquist Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana

Justice Beth Bakerdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1James C. Quigley and Linda M.S. Quigley(Quigley) and Richard L. Beck assert conflicting claims of ownership over four water rights for irrigation from Nevada Creek.After presiding over a trial and conducting a site inspection, the Water Master issued a report dividing the four rights between Quigley and Beck based on a ratio of the irrigated acres owned by each party.Quigley filed objections with the Water Court.The Water Court largely adopted the Water Master's report.Quigley appeals the Water Court's order.We affirm.

¶ 2We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1.Whether the Water Court erred in its interpretation of the 1909 Geary v. Raymond decree;

2.Whether the Water Court erred in applying the clear error standard to the Water Master's findings of fact.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Quigley and Beck own adjoining ranches, which John W. Blair once owned as a single property known as Finn Ranch.Finn Ranch, situated in the Blackfoot River Basin, included lands in sections 27,28,33, and34 of Township 12 North, Range9 West.The lands in sections 27and28 now belong to Beck, and the lands in sections 33and34 now belong to Quigley.

¶ 4 In 1909, when Blair still owned Finn Ranch, the Montana Third Judicial District Court in Powell County issued a decree in the caseGeary v. Raymond(the "Geary decree"), declaring the water rights of users of Nevada Creek and its tributaries.Among the rights that the district court decreed to Blair were four water rights for irrigation from Nevada Creek.In 1912, Finn Ranch was split and sold.It has remained in separate ownership to the present day.No deed transfer for the properties in the ensuing years has reserved specific water rights as appurtenances to the land.

¶ 5 Quigley's predecessor timely filed water rights claims, including four Nevada Creek claims¹ based on the water rights decreed to Blair in the Geary decree.Beck's predecessor also filed four water right claims² for Nevada Creek based on water rights decreed to Blair in the Geary decree.During its review of claims in preparation for the Blackfoot River Basin Temporary Preliminary Decree, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation(DNRC) noted that the eight claims were based on the same four water rights and that each party was claiming the entirety of each of the four rights.As a result, the rights claimed exceeded the total appropriations and the DNRC attached a "decree exceeded" issue remark to the eight claims from Quigley and Beck.

¶ 6 Quigley filed objections against the Beck claims, and Beck filed counterobjections against the Quigley claims.The claims and objections were consolidated and assigned to a Water Master for adjudication.After discovery, the Water Master presided over a two-day trial and conducted a site visit.In his report, the Master concluded that both Quigley and Beck were successors to a portion of Blair's four Nevada Creek water rights.The Master proportionally split the flow rates of each decreed right between Quigley and Beck based on the historic number of acres irrigated on each property, using the formula provided in Spaeth v. Emmett, 142 Mont. 231, 383 P.2d 812(1963).Under this formula, Beck received 70 percent of the decreed rights and Quigley received 30 percent.

¶ 7 Quigley filed objections to the Master's report with the Water Court.After briefing and a hearing, the Water Court largely adopted the Master's report.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 8 When a case involves a Water Master's report, "[t]he Water Court reviews the Master's findings of fact for clear error and the Master's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct."Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera Cnty. Canal & Reservoir Co., 2014 MT 167, ¶ 25, 375 Mont. 327, 328 P.3d 644.This Court then reviews "the Water Court's order de novo, to determine whether it correctly applied the clear error standard of review to the Master's findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were correct."Skelton Ranch, Inc., ¶ 26.

¶ 9 Interpretation of a judgment or decree is a question of law, which this Court reviews to determine whether it is correct.Granite Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. McDonald, 2016 MT 281, ¶ 5, 385 Mont. 262, 383 P.3d 740.

¶ 10 Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if (1) substantial evidence does not support the findings of fact; (2) the fact-finder misapprehended the effect of the evidence; or (3) a review of the record leaves the court with the "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."Marks v. 71 Ranch, LP, 2014 MT 250, ¶ 12, 376 Mont. 340, 334 P.3d 373;Skelton Ranch, Inc., ¶ 27.

DISCUSSION

¶ 111.Whether the Water Court erred in its interpretation of the 1909 Geary v. Raymond decree.

¶ 12 Quigley contends that the Water Master and Water Court incorrectly interpreted the Geary decree as decreeing water rights for irrigation to all of Finn Ranch.Quigley argues that the water rights could be appurtenant only to the specific lands where Blair put the water to beneficial use.He thus contends that in order to apply established appurtenance law to the Geary decree, the decree must be interpreted to have incorporated Blair's answer and amended answer, which described more fully where Blair put his water rights to use.

¶ 13 The Water Master determined that the Geary decree did not attach the decreed water rights to specific parcels; rather, the water rights "were made appurtenant to all of [Blair's] land as listed in his answer to the complaint."The Water Master reasoned that the district court was specific in listing the priority dates and flow rates, and it could have been equally specific in listing the places of use had it intended such a meaning.The Water Master concluded that it would be "an exercise in speculation" to match the flow rates and priority dates listed in the decree with particular parcels mentioned in the pleadings.

¶ 14 The Water Court affirmed the Water Master's interpretation.First, it reasoned that the decree did not incorporate Blair's pleadings, because the claim dates and flow rates alleged in the pleadings were rejected.Second, the references to Blair's pleadings in the decree were general, and the decree made similar references to other parties' pleadings, some of which were less specific than Blair's pleadings.Further, the decree specified the point of diversion and ditch for one of the four rights.The Water Court reasoned that the decree would have specified a point of diversion and ditch for each right if that was the court's intention, and that the Master properly rejected attempts to add such new findings to the decree a century later.

¶ 15 Interpretation of a prior court decree is an issue of law.Granite Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, ¶ 19.We review a trial court's interpretation of such a decree to determine whether it is correct.Granite Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, ¶ 19.We interpret judgments "to have a reasonable intendment; where a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations the one will be adopted which renders it the more reasonably effective and conclusive and which makes the judgment harmonize with the facts and law of the case."Granite Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, ¶ 19(quotingGans & Klein Inv. Co. v. Sanford, 91 Mont. 512, 522, 8 P.2d 808, 811(1932) ).The court may "refer to the record in the original case" if a decree is ambiguous.Harland v. Anderson Ranch Co., 2004 MT 132, ¶ 23, 321 Mont. 338, 92 P.3d 1160.The court should interpret the decree to be consistent with the established and applicable law.SeeGranite Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, ¶¶ 21-22.

¶ 16 For a water right to be appurtenant to land it must be used for a beneficial purpose on that land.SeeSection 70-15-105, MCA ("A thing is deemed to be incidental or appurtenant to land when it is by right used with the land for its benefit.");Castillo v. Kunnemann, 197 Mont. 190, 196, 642 P.2d 1019, 1024(1982)(quotingLensing v. Day & Hansen Sec. Co., 67 Mont. 382, 384, 215 P. 999, 1000(1923) )("[A] water right acquired by appropriation, and used for a beneficial and necessary purpose in connection with a given tract of land, is an appurtenance.").A beneficial use includes "the use of water for the benefit of the appropriator" for agricultural or other uses.Section 85-2-102(4)(a), MCA.

¶ 17 Quigley puts great weight on the Geary decree's language that Blair's appropriations were "for the purpose of irrigating the lands belonging to them and described in the answer of the said John W. Blair."Quigley argues that the phrase "described in the answer" incorporates the parts of Blair's answer where he described which parcels he irrigated with which claimed water rights.However, this exact language is used throughout the decree to introduce each declaration of irrigation rights.It is not modified to indicate whether a particular party's pleadings are specific or more generalized.Read in the broader context of the entire decree, it can hardly be understood to give Blair's pleadings heightened importance.The Water Court held, and Beck does not dispute, that Blair's pleadings properly are considered in interpreting the decree and as evidence of historic water use.But the language in the decree on which Quigley relies does not mandate the interpretation of the decree that Quigley proposes.

¶ 18 As both the Water Master and Water Court observed, the decree rejected the appropriation dates and flow rates that Blair alleged in his answer.Quigley argues...