This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a dispute over the ownership and transfer of 28.74 acre-feet of Hagerman Canal irrigation ditch water rights. The water rights were originally appurtenant to a feed yard property owned by the Barnetts, who later transferred the property through various transactions, including bankruptcy proceedings and foreclosure sales. The Plaintiffs claimed ownership of the water rights after purchasing adjacent land at a foreclosure sale, while the Defendants argued that the water rights remained appurtenant to the feed yard property (paras 2-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: Declared the Plaintiffs as the owners of the disputed water rights and upheld their transfer to other realty (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the water rights remained appurtenant to the feed yard property and were never legally severed or transferred. They contended that the Plaintiffs' use of the water rights on other lands was invalid without compliance with statutory procedures (paras 9-10, 17-18).
- Appellees (Plaintiffs): Claimed that the water rights were retained by the Trustee in Bankruptcy and passed to them through the foreclosure sale. They also argued that long-term use of the water rights on their property constituted a de facto transfer (paras 10, 16).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the 28.74 acre-feet of Hagerman Canal irrigation ditch water rights (para 1).
- Whether the water rights were properly severed and transferred for use on other lands (para 1).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and held that the water rights remained appurtenant to the feed yard property owned by the Defendants (para 25).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca and Black JJ. concurring):
- The Court examined the chain of title and found that the 28.74 acre-feet of water rights were appurtenant to the feed yard property and passed to the Defendants through subsequent transactions. The Trustee's deeds did not reserve or sever these water rights (paras 11-12).
- The Plaintiffs' claim to the water rights was invalid because the foreclosure sale explicitly excluded the feed yard property and its appurtenant water rights. The Plaintiffs' use of the water rights on other lands did not constitute a valid transfer (paras 13-15).
- The Court emphasized that statutory procedures under NMSA 1978, Section 72-5-23, must be followed to sever or transfer water rights. The Plaintiffs and their predecessors failed to comply with these requirements, rendering the purported transfer invalid (paras 17-22).
- The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument for a de facto transfer, holding that long-term use of water rights at a different location does not override statutory requirements or adjudicated rights (paras 16, 24).
- The Court concluded that the Defendants, as owners of the feed yard property, were entitled to the disputed water rights (para 24).