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 between the Mayordomo and Board of Commissioners of the La Joya Acequia Association and Louis Lovato, a landowner and member of the Association. Lovato was accused of violating the Association's rules by misappropriating water, irrigating without permission, refusing to comply with the Mayordomo's requests, and interfering with downstream users' water rights. The Association sought injunctive relief against Lovato to prevent further violations (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellees: Argued that Lovato violated the Association's rules and regulations by unauthorized water use and sought injunctive relief to prevent further violations.
• Respondent-Appellant (Lovato): Contended that the district court erred in appointing board members through an improper election, failed to find Petitioners in violation of an injunction against opening new lands for irrigation, erred in dismissing Lovato’s counterclaim regarding illegal fees, and claimed the contempt order against him was not supported by substantial evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in appointing commissioners through an improper election.
• Whether the district court erred in not finding Petitioners in violation of an injunction against opening new lands for irrigation.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Lovato’s counterclaim regarding illegal fees.
• Whether the district court order finding Lovato in contempt of court is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions in all respects.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly followed Section 73-3-1 in appointing commissioners after an election was not held as required, thus filling the vacancies (paras 5-14). The court also found no error in the district court's decision not to find Petitioners in violation of an injunction against opening new lands for irrigation, as Lovato failed to preserve this issue on the record or provide evidence to support his argument (paras 16-23). Regarding Lovato's claim of illegal fees, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as Lovato had an adequate remedy at law (paras 24-30). Lastly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Lovato in contempt, as substantial evidence supported the finding (paras 31-38). The case was remanded only to determine if there was a typographical error in the final order regarding the subsection of Section 73-2-64 referenced (para 39).