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 case involves a dispute over an easement on Defendants Allan Tow and Sallie Budagher's land, which was used to irrigate Plaintiffs Gallegos's and Ridley's farms. The district court found that an easement exists through Defendants' land to serve and benefit Plaintiffs' farms, based on continuous irrigation through a ditch from 1950 to the beginning of litigation in 2015 for the Gallegos farm, and for six to twelve years, two decades before the beginning of litigation for the Ridley farm's orchards. The Defendants contested this easement and associated attorney fees for proceedings below.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the district court's judgment was not supported by substantial evidence, contested the grant of attorney fees, and raised issues regarding the creation of a "permanent" or a "prescriptive/permissive" easement, among other points.
• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Demonstrated continuous irrigation through a ditch on Defendants' land for the required period to establish an easement by presumption under NMSA 1978, § 73-2-5(A) (2005), and argued for the existence of an easement and associated attorney fees due to Defendants' violation of a court order.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the grant of attorney fees to Plaintiffs was appropriate.
• Whether the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the law regarding the establishment of a "permanent" or a "prescriptive/permissive" easement.
• Whether Defendants' other arguments, including those related to water rights and the impact of a licensing agreement between Plaintiff Gallegos and BNSF Railway, had merit.

Disposition

• The district court's final judgment, including a finding of an easement on Defendants' land and associated attorney fees for proceedings below, was affirmed on all issues raised by the Defendants.

Reasons

• HANISEE, Chief Judge, YOHALEM, Judge, and WRAY, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the district court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence, including the continuous use of the ditch for irrigation and the legislative presumption of an easement after five continuous years of irrigation (paras 3-4). The Court also upheld the grant of attorney fees, finding no error in compensating Plaintiffs for litigation necessary to enforce a court order (para 5). The Court addressed Defendants' arguments regarding the nature of the easement and clarified that the district court recognized an easement under Section 73-2-5, not under common law categories of easement origination (paras 6). The Court found Defendants' arguments regarding the necessity of an easement, the district court's weighing of evidence, and the scope of the easements to be unpersuasive (paras 7-9). Additionally, the Court dismissed Defendants' concerns about the district court's handling of a motion for summary judgment and the creation of a new water right, as well as their takings argument and concerns about jurisdiction over water rights, finding no error in the district court's judgment (paras 10-14).