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 appellant, Ronald Monteverde, purchased property in 1979 that included a surface water irrigation right. After buying the property, Monteverde and a neighbor cleared a community ditch to allow water flow, which was sufficient only once to reach his property. Subsequent obstructions by upstream property owners and Monteverde's attempts to divert water directly from the Gallinas River and an intermittent pond on his property ceased in 2008. Monteverde has not attempted irrigation from any source since then. The State served Monteverde with offers of judgment in 1991 and 2009, stating his property had no water right, which Monteverde rejected. Monteverde also filed an application to change the point of diversion, which the State rejected (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Monteverde): Argued that the Special Master's application of equitable tolling and laches should be affirmed, asserting that the State was aware that delay might become an issue. Monteverde also claimed that the delay in prosecuting his case deprived him of his constitutional right to due process (paras 11, 22).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Special Master's sua sponte application of equitable tolling and laches deprived the State of notice and opportunity to defend against them. The State also argued that Monteverde abandoned his water right by failing to put water to beneficial use on his property for twenty-four years (paras 11, 27).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Special Master's sua sponte application of equitable tolling and laches deprived the State of notice and opportunity to defend.
• Whether Monteverde abandoned his water right by failing to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of intent to abandon.
• Whether the delay in prosecuting Monteverde's case deprived him of his constitutional right to due process (paras 1, 2, 22).

Disposition

• The district court's decision that Monteverde abandoned his water right was affirmed (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that Monteverde did not explicitly plead equitable tolling and laches, and the evidence he presented was grounded in his efforts to preserve his water right rather than establish excusable inaction due to the State's alleged delay in prosecuting his case. Therefore, the State was not given notice or an opportunity to defend against these defenses, leading to the conclusion that Monteverde waived these defenses. The Court also found that Monteverde failed to put water to beneficial use for twenty-four years, which triggered the presumption of intent to abandon the water right. Monteverde's unauthorized diversions of water and failure to follow statutory procedures to change his point of diversion did not constitute beneficial use. Lastly, Monteverde's due process claim was dismissed due to a failure to demonstrate how the delay was prejudicial to his case (paras 11-35).