AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Joseph and Alma Miller Revocable Trust (Appellant) entered into development agreements with the Eldorado Area Water and Sanitation District (Appellee) in 2008, following a 2007 settlement agreement. The dispute arose over whether the Appellant retained a right to fifty fee-free water taps under the 2007 settlement agreement, which the Appellant contended was not extinguished by the subsequent 2008 agreements.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the language of the 2008 agreement was ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that the Appellant had taken advantage of the fifty fee-free taps by banking them for future use (para 3).
• Appellee: Contended that the 2008 agreement's language acknowledged that the Appellant received the full benefit of the bargain, implying that the Appellee had fulfilled its obligation to provide the fifty fee-free taps (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the language of the 2008 development agreements unambiguously indicated that the Appellant did not retain a right to fifty fee-free water taps under a 2007 settlement agreement.

Disposition

• The district court's grant of summary judgment against the Appellant on its declaratory judgment claim was affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge Zachary A. Ives, Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, and Judge Gerald E. Baca, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the language of the 2008 agreement was unambiguous and indicated that the Appellee had fulfilled its obligation to provide the Appellant with the fee-free taps at issue. The Court reasoned that the recitals in the 2008 agreement, particularly the use of the word "[t]hus" and the statement that Appellant "has taken advantage of" all fifty-seven taps provided for by the 2007 settlement, clearly showed that Appellee had performed its obligation. The Court also noted that the 2008 agreement explicitly stated that Appellee’s obligations under the 2007 settlement were "fulfill[ed]," despite only seven of the fifty-seven taps being included in the 2008 agreement. This led to the conclusion that the Appellant had received the performance it was owed by Appellee, rendering the Appellant's remaining arguments moot (paras 1-4).