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 long-standing dispute over water rights and a water delivery system in the Waterfall Subdivisions, New Mexico. The plaintiffs, Melvin A. Elkins, Jr., and Wanda L. Elkins, claimed ownership of the Culbertson Springs water rights and the Waterfall Water Distribution System (WDS), asserting that these were conveyed to them through a series of transactions. The defendant, Waterfall Community Water Users Association, operated the WDS and controlled the water rights, claiming them to be held in trust for the benefit of the property owners in the subdivisions (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge: Denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant; declared defendant and its property owners as having ownership in certain water rights and a water delivery system held in a constructive trust; awarded damages to the defendant for services including use of the water delivery system (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued they have record title to the water rights and the WDS through a chain of recorded deeds, dating back to the Ysleta Decree. Claimed that Waterfall, Inc. expressly retained the water rights in the deeds to individual lot owners, thus, the water rights did not pass to the Waterfall subdivisions lot owners (para 15).
• Defendant: Contended that the water rights and the WDS were held in a constructive trust for the benefit of the property owners in the subdivisions. Argued that any attempt to sever the rights from the land was contrary to the Ysleta Decree and New Mexico law, and thus was ineffective in creating a severance (paras 14, 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiffs have record title to the water rights and the Waterfall Water Distribution System (WDS) (para 15).
• Whether the water rights and the WDS were abandoned to the property owners and held in a constructive trust by the defendant (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant and denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they could have record title to the water rights or the WDS. It was determined that the water rights were appurtenant to the land and could not be severed based on the Ysleta Decree and New Mexico law. The court found no express grant of water rights to CCC in the Special Master’s Deeds, which would have been necessary for the plaintiffs to acquire such rights. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its judgment that the plaintiffs own, at most, the water rights appurtenant to the lots they currently own in the Waterfall subdivisions, and that the WDS was abandoned to the property owners (paras 16-19).