ADAMS v CHILCOTT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14592 I 'I'Hl3 sUI?FEZ!TJZ N COuIiT OF THE: STATE OF mNTANA 1979 K E ?DAMS, . . P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS- WlLLIAMRICHARDcHmxIT, Defendant and Appellant. A p p l fm: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stacey and Nye, Billings, hbntana Jeyrold L. Nye argued, Billings, Pbntana For Respondent: Anderson, Symnes, Brawn, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings, Pbntana James L. Jones arqued, Billings, Montana Suhnitted: Filed: mi- - - -' L Decided: My 3, 1979 a 99 j\iL 9 1 1 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Both p a r t i e s a p p e a l from a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t f o r Carbon County, t h e Honorable C . B. t Sande p r e s i d i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . M.R.App.Civ.P., P u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 3 ( h ) , d e f e n d a n t w a s s t i p u l a t e d a s a p p e l l a n t and p l a i n t i f f a s respondent. Lying a t t h e r o o t of t h i s a p p e a l i s a 640 a c r e r a n c h i n Carbon County which was s o l d by a p p e l l a n t t o r e s p o n d e n t . The r a n c h was f o r m e r l y p a r t o f a l a r g e r p r o p e r t y owned by a p p e l l a n t ' s grandfather. I n 1937 and a g a i n i n 1962, t h e grand- f a t h e r o b t a i n e d w a t e r p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s and s t o c k s u b s c r i p t i o n agreements which e n t i t l e d him t o buy c e r t a i n amounts o f w a t e r from t h e Rock Creek Water U s e r ' s A s s o c i a t i o n . There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e s e r i g h t s w e r e owned i n c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e undivided property. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e o n l y a c t u a l u s e of water under t h e c o n t r a c t s w a s f o r i r r i g a t i o n d u r i n g a b r i e f p e r i o d i n 1966. Upon t h e d e a t h o f ap- p e l l a n t ' s g r a n d f a t h e r i n 1969, t h e r a n c h and t h e c o n t r a c t w a t e r r i g h t s were d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between a p p e l l a n t and h i s cousin. A s t h i s c a s e does n o t concern t h e c o u s i n ' s " i n h e r i - tance," t h e t e r m s ranch o r property w i l l h e r e a f t e r r e f e r only t o t h a t which " p a s s e d " t o a p p e l l a n t . According t o a p p e l l a n t , h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t water r i g h t s c o n t i n u e d t o b e owned w i t h t h e r a n c h . his s t a t e m e n t i s born o u t by t h e f a c t t h a t when a p p e l l a n t mortgaged t h e l a n d i n 1969 t h e w a t e r r i g h t s were t r e a t e d a s app u r t e n a n t t o it. A t t e m p t s t o s e l l t h e r a n c h began i n 1971. Over s e v e r a l y e a r s i t w a s l i s t e d w i t h v a r i o u s a r e a r e a l t o r s and u n s u c c e s s f u l n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r s a l e w e r e begun w i t h s e v e r a l p r o s p e c t i v e The p r i c e s o u g h t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d i s most o f t e n buyers. r e f e r r e d t o as b e i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $240,000. Appellant t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometimes t h i s f i g u r e i n c l u d e d t h e c o n t r a c t w a t e r r i g h t s b u t sometimes d i d n o t . F u r t h e r , he s a i d h e n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e a g r a v e l d e p o s i t l o c a t e d on t h e ranch. T h i s l a s t a s s e r t i o n was c o n t r a d i c t e d by a n a r e a r e a l t o r who t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t p o i n t e d t h e g r a v e l p i t o u t " a s a r e a l a s s e t of t h e r a n c h " and i n d i c a t e d i t was i n c l u d e d w i t h t h e r e s t of t h e p r o p e r t y . I n l a t e 1975 r e s p o n d e n t o f f e r e d t o buy t h e p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g " t h e g r a v e l p i l e s " and " a l l w a t e r r i g h t s " f o r $185,000. Even though a l o c a l bank, a s h o l d e r o f t h e mort- gage o n t h e p r o p e r t y , p u t p r e s s u r e on a p p e l l a n t t o a c c e p t t h e o f f e r , h e r e j e c t e d i t a s t o o low. After t h i s occurred, t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s between t h e p a r t i e s w e r e conducted by a t t o r n e y - r e a l t o r William Morse who r e p r e s e n t e d r e s p o n d e n t a s an undisclosed p r i n c i p l e . Morse t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c a t a l y s t f o r t h e s a l e was a p p e l l a n t ' s representation t h a t t h e r e w a s a contract with a t h i r d p a r t y f o r t h e s a l e of g r a v e l from t h e r a n c h . Upon l e a r n i n g t h i s , r e s p o n d e n t o f f e r e d $201,500 f o r t h e p r o p e r t y . A p p e l l a n t a g r e e d , and a b u y - s e l l agreement c o n t a i n i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e w a s p r e p a r e d and s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s : " A l l o f t h e s e l l e r ' s r i g h t s , t i t l e s and i n t e r e s t i n and t o t h e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d r e a l p r o p e r t y s h a l l be deemed i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s a l e , i n c l u d i n g a l l w a t e r , d i t c h and i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s which t h e s e l l e r h a s c u r r e n t l y used on t h e p r e m i s e s . " I t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s a r e n o t aware of t h e e x a c t s t a t u s of t h e o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l r i g h t s on t h e p r e m i s e s a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . However s e l l e r a g r e e s t o convey buyer 50% of a l l t h e o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l s on a l l t h e prem- ises i f s e l l e r owns a t l e a s t 50% t h e r e o f ; i n t h e e v e n t s e l l e r owns less t h a n 50% o f a l l t h e m i n e r a l s on a l l t h e l a n d s he hereby a g r e e s t o convey a l l s u c h o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l r i g h t s upon t h e p r e m i s e s a s he d o e s own." A c o n t r a c t f o r deed was p r e p a r e d by a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r - ney and s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s on May 11, 1976. I t made no mention o f w a t e r r i g h t s b u t d i d i n c l u d e a c l a u s e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e m i n e r a l s i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same l a n g u a g e a s t h e b u y - s e l l agreement. B e f o r e t h e c o n t r a c t was s i g n e d t h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e d as t o whether a p p e l l a n t was t o r e s e r v e 50% of t h e sand and g r a v e l r i g h t s . They completed t h e s a l e b u t e x e c u t e d a supplementary agreement t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e sand and g r a v e l r i g h t s would b e s e t t l e d l a t e r . An a s s o c i a t e of a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y handled t h e det a i l s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and w r o t e a l e t t e r t o Morse which reads: "The b u y - s e l l agreement d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h t h e manner i n which t h e water i s t o be t r a n s f e r r e d , b u t I propose t h a t w e handle t h a t aspect a s follows: M r . C h i l c o t t w i l l as-both t h e s i g-t-M r . Adams -- s t o c k p u r c h a s e n o agreements and water p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s which he h o l d s . M r . Adams w i l l t h e n e x e c u t e a n a s signment o f t h o s e r i g h t s back t o M r . C h i l c o t t , which w i l l b e h e l d i n escrow f o r u s e i n t h e I f e e l t h i s arrangement i s e v e n t of d e f a u l t . b e t t e r f o r your c l i e n t t h a n m e r e l y p l a c i n g t h e a s s i g n m e n t s from M r . C h i l c o t t t o M r . Adams i n escrow s i n c e t h e s t o c k i n t h e Water Assoc i a t i o n must be v o t e d by i t s r e c o r d owner, and I assume t h a t M r . Adams would n o t want t o w a i t t h e l i f e o f t h e c o n t r a c t t o become r e c o r d owner. The t r a n s f e r of t h e w a t e r c o n t r a c t a g r e e m e n t s r e q u i r e s a p p r o v a l by t h e Board of D i r e c t o r s o f t h e Water A s s o c i a t i o n , b u t I have been i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n and a n t i c i p a t e no problems on t h a t end w h a t s o e v e r . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) Morse t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Did you have o c c a s i o n t o d i s c u s s w i t h M r . Barnard, a t t o r n e y i n M r . T o l l i v e r ' s o f f i c e , a s t o how t h e w a t e r would b e t r a n s f e r r e d ? A. I did. "Q. Was t h e r e any q u e s t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o your c o n v e r s a t i o n , e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h i s l e t t e r with M r . Barnard, a s t o whether o r n o t t h e Cooney Dam [ c o n t r a c t ] w a t e r w a s t o b e ass i g n e d t o M r . Adams a s i n d i c a t e d i n M r . B a r n a r d ' s l e t t e r ? A. Not i n t h e l e a s t , w e had gone o v e r i t i n d e t a i l w i t h h i s o f f i c e , w e a l s o had some o f t h e Cooney Dam, c a l l i t Rock Creek Water A s s o c i a t i o n , o r something l i k e t h a t , forms, t h a t a r e t o be used f o r t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g , and w e discussed it i n d e t a i l ; it w a s p u r e l y a perfunct o r y matter t h a t needed t o be done a s f a r a s I was concerned, and I was l e f t w i t h t h e impress i o n t h a t w a s what h e t h o u g h t a l s o . " On t h e day t h e c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d , r e s p o n d e n t dep o s i t e d $57,500 i n escrow w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s n o t t o r e l e a s e i t u n t i l a d e q u a t e e v i d e n c e of t i t l e w a s p r o v i d e d . Although t h e escrow money was r e l e a s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y two months l a t e r , we have n o t been p r e s e n t e d w i t h any i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o whet h e r evidence of t i t l e w a s a c t u a l l y presented. Respondent r a i s e d hay o n t h e r a n c h i n 1976 and h a r v e s t e d tons i n three cuttings. The c o n t r a c t water was n o t needed t h a t y e a r as o t h e r d e c r e e d water was s u f f i c i e n t . The n e x t y e a r , r e s p o n d e n t s p r e a d f e r t i l i z e r on h i s hay p a s t u r e i n hopes o f o b t a i n i n g a 300 t o n y i e l d . The summer was p a r - t i c u l a r l y d r y and t h e d e c r e e d w a t e r w a s n o t enough t o maximize p r o d u c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t d e n i e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t water r i g h t s had been t r a n s f e r r e d and would n o t a l l o w r e s p o n d e n t t o have any of t h a t w a t e r u n t i l l a t e i n t h e summer. 68 t o n s of hay w a s c u t . Only C a t t l e w e r e a l l o w e d t o g r a z e on p a r t of t h e c r o p l a n d b e c a u s e , a s r e s p o n d e n t a s s e r t s , t h e w a t e r came t o o l a t e and t h e c r o p w a s a l r e a d y r u i n e d . Ap- p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h e g r a z i n g c a t t l e w e r e t h e c a u s e of t h e crop loss. I n August 1976 r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e sand and g r a v e l . The c o m p l a i n t was amended i n J a n u a r y 1978 and s o u g h t damages f o r a p p e l - l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o t r a n s f e r t h e water purchase c o n t r a c t s as w e l l a s f o r t h e c r o p damage a l l e g e d t o have been c a u s e d by that failure. A p p e l l a n t answered, a s s e r t i n g a 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e sand and g r a v e l and denying t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e w a t e r purchase c o n t r a c t s . A f t e r a n o n j u r y t r i a l and p u r s u a n t t o f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , judgment was e n t e r e d d e c l a r i n g r e s p o n d e n t t o own t h e c o n t r a c t w a t e r r i g h t s buy o n l y 50% of t h e s a n d and g r a v e l . I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a n t was found t o be l i a b l e f o r t h e c r o p damage caused by w i t h h o l d i n g t h e w a t e r and w a s o r d e r e d t o e x e c u t e a w a r r a n t y deed t o t h e premises. W e affirm. On a p p e a l t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s have been p r e s e n t e d : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g a p p e l - l a n t t o e x e c u t e a w a r r a n t y deed. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e c l a r i n g re- s p o n d e n t and a p p e l l a n t t o e a c h own 50% o f t h e sand and g r a v e l . 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e c l a r i n g t h e r i g h t s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e w a t e r p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s t o be owned by r e s p o n d e n t . 4. Whether t h e award of damages f o r c r o p l o s s was error. 5. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n imposing on e a c h p a r t y t h e d u t y t o pay i t s c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e n o t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f o r damages i n - c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e n o n r e l e a s e of t h e escrow money. On a p p e a l i t i s a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l judge e r r e d i n n o t deciding the issue. No e v i d e n c e w a s p r e s e n t e d on t h i s a s p e c t of t h e c a s e , and we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r it. U n d e r w r i t e r s v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 577, 581, 34 St.Rep. 297, 302. Mont. Mont. A s s ' n of , 563 P . 2d The f i r s t i s s u e i s t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e o r d e r t o a p p e l l a n t t o e x e c u t e and d e l i v e r a w a r r a n t y d e e d . The c o n t r a c t f o r deed c a l l e d f o r t h e d e l i v e r y o f s u c h a deed i n escrow. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s p e c i f i c r e l i e f p r a y e d f o r i n h i s comp l a i n t , r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t "such o t h e r r e l i e f a s t o t h e C o u r t may seem p r o p e r . " W n o t e t h a t c o u r t s have " t h e power e t o g r a n t complete r e l i e f under [ t h e i r ] e q u i t y power." v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. 811, 814. , Mont. Foy 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 , 35 No r e a s o n h a s been b r o u g h t t o o u r a t t e n - t i o n why a w a r r a n t y deed s h o u l d n o t b e e x e c u t e d and t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e o r d e r w a s w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c tion. W n e x t t u r n t o t h e a s s e r t e d r e s e r v a t i o n by a p p e l l a n t e of 50% of t h e s a n d and g r a v e l r i g h t s . I n both t h e buy-sell agreement and c o n t r a c t f o r deed, 50% of a p p e l l a n t ' s " o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l r i g h t s " w e r e r e s e r v e d t o him i f , t o b e g i n w i t h , h e owned more t h a n 50% t h e r e o f . r e s e r v a t i o n must b e e x p r e s s e d . 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-1-520 MCA. To b e e f f e c t i v e , a S e c t i o n 67-1523, R.C.M. There b e i n g no mention of sand and g r a v e l on t h e f a c e of t h e document, t h e o n l y way any r i g h t s t h e r e t o c a n b e r e s e r v e d i s i f t h e y a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e t e r m " o i l , g a s and m i n e r a l . " W e recognize t h a t t h e r e i s a s p l i t o f a u t h o r i t y on t h e q u e s t i o n , 54 Am.Jur.2d ~ i n e s and M i n e r a l s 58, p. 192, b u t d e c l i n e t o announce a n a p p l i c a b l e r u l e i n Montana. The s p l i t o f a u t h o r i t y , t h e volumi- nous l i t i g a t i o n t h e i s s u e h a s c a u s e d and t h e a b s e n c e of p e r t i n e n t Montana case law i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t e r m " m i n e r a l " , as a p p l i e d t o sand and g r a v e l , i s i n h e r e n t l y ambiguous. such, e x t r a c a r e should be taken t o e x p r e s s l y i n c l u d e o r e x c l u d e sand and g r a v e l from t h e term " m i n e r a l " . As Where a n ambiguous t e r m i s u s e d , t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r - t i e s w i l l govern i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n and e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e c a n be used t o d i s c o v e r t h a t i n t e n t . v. K i l l o r n ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 79 Mont. H i l l C a t t l e Corp. 327, 340-41, 256 P. 497, 502. A p p e l l a n t ' s mother and g i r l f r i e n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t o n e p o i n t i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r s a l e , Morse a s k e d them t o s t e p a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t w i t h a p p e l l a n t f o r c o f f e e w h i l e he c o n f e r r e d w i t h t h e undisclosed p r i n c i p l e . Upon t h e i r r e t u r n he informed them t h e p r i n c i p l e would go h a l f and h a l f on t h e m i n e r a l s and sand and g r a v e l . T h i s i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e upon which t o conclude t h a t t h e p a r t i e s intended t h e t e r m "mineral" t o i n c l u d e sand and g r a v e l . The n e x t q u e s t i o n f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n p e r t a i n s t o t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e c o n t r a c t w a t e r r i g h t s . The p h r a s e " A l l of t h e s e l l e r ' s r i g h t s , t i t l e s and i n t e r e s t i n and t o t h e above-described r e a l p r o p e r t y s h a l l be deemed i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s a l e , i n c l u d i n g a l l w a t e r , d i t c h and i r r i g a t i o n r i g h t s which t h e s e l l e r h a s c u r r e n t l y used on t h e p r e m i s e s , " appearing i n t h e buy-sell water rights. agreement i s t h e o n l y r e f e r e n c e t o I t i n d i c a t e s what i s t o be t r a n s f e r r e d r a t h e r t h a n what i s t o b e r e t a i n e d and b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t e x p r e s s l y e x c e p t t h e c o n t r a c t w a t e r r i g h t s , i t c a n n o t r e s e r v e them. S e c t i o n 67-1523, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-1-520 MCA. The c o n t r a c t water w a s used i n 1966 t o i r r i g a t e t h e l a n d and w a s t h u s b e n e f i c i a l l y used i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e r a n c h . By s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 67-211, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-15- 105 MCA, and by a l o n g l i n e of c a s e s , t h e most f i t t i n g o f which i s Schwend v . J o n e s ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 4 1 , 515 P.2d 89, t h e l a w i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t when a t h i n g i s used f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f l a n d , i t i s deemed a p p u r t e n a n t t o t h e land. I t i s accepted t h a t an appurtenant water r i g h t may be t r a n s f e r r e d a p a r t from t h e l a n d which i t b e n e f i t s . But, i f t h e property i s t r a n s f e r r e d without an express r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e a p p u r t e n a n t water r i g h t s , t h e y accompany t h e l a n d . 70-1-520 MCA; S e c t i o n 67-1523, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n Schwend, s u p r a , 163 Mont. a t 45; Yellowstone V. Co. v. Asso. Mtg. I n v e s t o r s ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 88 Mont. 73, 84, 290 P. 255, 70 A.L.R. T h i s i s as t r u e f o r c o n t r a c t r i g h t s 1002. a s it i s f o r appropriated o r decreed r i g h t s . Schwend, s u p r a , 163 Mont. a t 45. I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a n t , a c t i n g through h i s a t t o r n e y , o u t l i n e d how t h e c o n t r a c t r i g h t s would b e t r a n s f e r r e d . This c r e a t e d a c i r c u m s t a n c e which l e d r e s p o n d e n t t o a c t t o h i s d e t r i m e n t i n r e l i a n c e on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Appellant i s t h u s e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e r i g h t s i n q u e s t i o n w e r e not transferred. Smith v. K r u t a r ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 325, Having d e t e r m i n e d t h e w a t e r r i g h t s w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d w i t h t h e r a n c h , i t f o l l o w s t h a t any w i t h h o l d i n g of them by a p p e l l a n t was wrongful and t h a t he i s l i a b l e f o r t h e damage c a u s e d by h i s a c t . The t r i a l c o u r t f i x e d damages a t $11,368 and on r e v i e w , o u r f u n c t i o n i s t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e finding. Cameron v. Cameron (1978) , Mont. , 587 P.2d 939, 945, 35 S t - R e p . 1723, 1729. R e s p o n d e n t ' s son-in-law testified that cattle were g r a z e d i n t h e hay p a s t u r e o n l y a f t e r t h e c r o p was r u i n e d . There w a s t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e a v e r a g e v a l u e p e r t o n of hay w a s $70. Respondent t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s p r o d u c t i o n c o s t was $21 p e r t o n . T h i s i n d i c a t e s a $49 p e r t o n l o s s . Respondent f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t w i t h t h e f e r t i l i z e r he a p p l i e d , t h e l a n d s h o u l d have y i e l d e d 300 t o n s of hay. The c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t w a s i m p o s s i b l e f o r r e s p o n d e n t t o s p r e a d t h i s much f e r t i l i z e r f o r t h e c o s t i n c u r r e d i s made f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l and c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s C o u r t . Respon- d e n t was a b l e t o c u t o n l y 68 t o n s of hay and t h u s l o s t 232 tons. A t $49 p e r ton, of t h e judgment. t h i s comes o u t t o $11,368, t h e amount There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t damage i n t h e amount of t h e judgment was c a u s e d by a p p e l l a n t w r o n g f u l l y w i t h h o l d i n g t h e water. F i n a l l y , t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed p r o v i d e d : " I f e i t h e r p a r t y t o t h i s agreement s h a l l i n s t i t u t e s u i t a g a i n s t t h e other t o enforce r i g h t s o r d u t i e s under t h i s agreement and o b t a i n a v a l i d judgment, t h e l o s i n g p a r t y a g r e e s t o pay a l l c o s t s , e x p e n s e s , and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s of the prevailing party." S i n c e a p p e l l a n t l o s t on t h e w a t e r r i g h t s and damages i s s u e s , and r e s p o n d e n t l o s t on t h e sand and g r a v e l q u e s t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e a r h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s was p r o p e r . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . The c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r damages from n o n r e l e a s e o f t h e escrow money i s remanded. W concur: e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
