Meeks v. Gunlock Water Users Ass'n

Annotate this Case
Meeks v. Gunlock Water Users Association, et al. Filed May 20, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


Todd Meeks,
Plaintiff and Appellant,


Gunlock Water Users Association, Inc., a Utah non-profit corp.; Michael Bracken; Kalvin Bowler; Larry Jessup; Roger Humphries; Larry Shurtliff; Jay Leavitt; Edward Bowler; Gail Smith; Krista Adams; Ruth McKean; Diann Covington; Roxanne Aplanalp;
John Does 8-20 and Jane Does 6-10, individuals,
Defendants and Appellees.

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981086-CA

May 20, 1999
  1999 UT App 169 -----

Fifth District, St. George Department
The Honorable G. Rand Beacham

Terry L. Hutchinson, St. George, for Appellant
Ronald W. Thompson and Stephen H. Urquhart, St. George, for Appellees


Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

BENCH, Judge:

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Because a summary judgment challenge presents only legal issues, we review the grant of summary judgment for correctness. We consider only whether the trial court correctly applied the law and correctly concluded that no disputed issues of material fact existed." Aurora Credit Servs., Inc. v. Liberty W. Dev., Inc., 970 P.2d 1273, 1277 (Utah 1998) (citation omitted). "'In determining whether the lower court correctly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact, we view the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the losing party.'" Nyman v. McDonald, 966 P.2d 1210, 1212 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers, 811 P.2d 182, 183 (Utah 1991)).

Under article V, section 2 of the bylaws, Meeks's membership rights only pertain to his own residential property, located within the water service area. Further, article XI, section 3 of the bylaws provides: "Each member may be permitted to have additional service lines from the corporation's water system in the discretion of the board of directors . . . ." (Emphasis added.) When exercising this discretion, this same section of the bylaws mandates that the board of directors determine what conditions are "necessary to protect the interests of other members and to allow for the orderly expansion and extension of the system to serve other property that may need service along the distribution lines of the system." (Emphasis added.)

While contending that appellees abused their discretion and did not perform certain fiduciary duties, Meeks fails to show how their actions exceeded the scope of their discretionary authority provided under the bylaws. In both his Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment and the supporting affidavit, Meeks never asserts that the property for which he requested service is within the water service area or "along the distribution lines of the system." Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Meeks, there were no facts before the court that controvert appellees' properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Briggs v. Holcomb, 740 P.2d 281, 283 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We therefore affirm.

Russell W. Bench, Judge



James Z. Davis, Judge

Gregory K. Orme, Judge