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

• Plaintiffs own land adjacent to Defendants' land. In November 2008, Defendant Rodriguez hired Lucero to channel a wash with earthmoving equipment, which altered the wash on Plaintiffs' property without their permission. This led to erosion and damage to Plaintiffs' property, especially after 2010 flooding. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for trespass and damages, while Defendants counterclaimed for trespass and sought to quiet title based on allegations against Plaintiffs.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on trespass claims and awarded damages. The court also quieted title in favor of Plaintiffs and refused to set post-judgment interest at 15 percent per annum as requested by Plaintiffs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Defendants trespassed on their property by altering the wash without permission, causing damage and erosion, especially noticeable after 2010 flooding. Sought damages and injunctive relief.
• Defendants: Counterclaimed for trespass, alleging Plaintiffs cleared vegetation and constructed a fence on Defendants' property. Argued for a prescriptive easement over the wash area and contested the jury's role in fixing property boundaries and the sufficiency of evidence for damages awarded to Plaintiffs.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining the boundary between the properties instead of the jury.
• Whether the district court erred in granting a directed verdict on Defendants' counterclaims for trespass.
• Whether the district court should have submitted a specific jury instruction on Plaintiffs' trespass claims.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence of damages to support the jury’s verdict against Defendants on Plaintiffs’ trespass claims.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs.
• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ trespass claims due to Defendants' alleged prescriptive easement.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award post-judgment interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment was affirmed in all respects except for the award of post-judgment interest, which was reversed and remanded with instructions to modify the rate to 15 percent per annum.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not err in its decisions regarding the boundary determination, directed verdict on Defendants' counterclaims, and the refusal of Defendants' requested jury instruction. The evidence supported the jury's damage award, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest. Defendants' argument regarding a prescriptive easement was not preserved for appeal. However, the district court abused its discretion in not awarding post-judgment interest at 15 percent per annum, as required by statute for judgments based on tortious conduct (paras 1-33).