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 plaintiffs, Melvin A. Elkins, Jr. and Wanda L. Elkins, appealed from an order that denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant, Waterfall Community Water Users Association, a motion for partial summary judgment. The core issue revolves around the ownership of water rights, with the district court finding that plaintiffs only own the water rights on the land they also own, as ownership of the water cannot be severed from ownership of the land. The defendant's counterclaims, including allegations that the plaintiffs failed to pay for their use of the water distribution system and other claims related to wrongful actions concerning the water rights and distribution system, remained unresolved and were set to proceed to trial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court's order should be reversed, contending that the issue of whether separate ownership of water rights and the real estate to which those rights are beneficially applied constitutes a "severance" under New Mexico law is determinative of all other claims in the case.
• Defendant-Appellee: Maintained that the plaintiffs only own water rights on the land they own and that ownership of water cannot be severed from the land. Additionally, the defendant raised counterclaims regarding the plaintiffs' failure to pay for the use of the water distribution system and other wrongful actions related to the water rights and distribution system.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment was correct.
• Whether the appeal is sufficiently final for purposes of appeal given the outstanding counterclaims.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for lack of a sufficiently final order.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Roderick T. Kennedy, Cynthia A. Fry, and Michael E. Vigil, unanimously concluded that the appeal was not sufficiently final due to outstanding counterclaims. The Court emphasized that for an order or judgment to be considered final for purposes of appeal, all issues of law and fact must have been determined and the case disposed of by the trial court to the fullest extent possible. The Court found that the district court's order did not resolve all issues, particularly the defendant's counterclaims regarding payment for water use and other related claims. The plaintiffs' contention that the appeal pertains to a determinative underlying issue was not sufficient to render the appeal final. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements for interlocutory appeal, as they failed to obtain an order containing the requisite certification language and did not file an application or their notice of appeal within the required timeframe.