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

• Defendants sold 82 acre-feet per year (afy) of vested water rights to Plaintiff in 2002 and then to Moongate Water Company in 2012, despite a prior agreement with Moongate that included a transfer of water rights and a reservation of additional rights for future connections. Plaintiff sued for damages resulting from breach of contract and fraud after Defendants' actions prevented Plaintiff from serving water to customers in a specific area, leading to litigation with Moongate and regulatory decisions that restricted Plaintiff's service area.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendants breached the 2002 Purchase Agreement by selling the same vested water rights to Moongate in 2012, which they had previously sold to Plaintiff, and made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the water rights.
• Defendants: Contended they did not breach the 2002 Purchase Agreement, arguing that Plaintiff was aware of the risks and Defendants' preexisting duty to convey water rights to Moongate. They also claimed the statute of limitations barred Plaintiff’s complaint and that Plaintiff breached the agreement by not developing the Mendenhall water rights.

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendants breached the 2002 Purchase Agreement by selling the vested water rights to Moongate in 2012.
• Whether Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether Plaintiff breached the 2002 Purchase Agreement by not developing the Mendenhall water rights.
• Whether the district court erred in its measure of damages, determination on the fraud claim, setting of interest rates, and declining to award damages for attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in litigation against Moongate.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its breach of contract claim was affirmed, awarding compensatory damages along with pre- and postjudgment interest. The court also denied the parties’ other claims against each other.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Duffy, Hanisee, and Ives concurring, affirmed the district court's findings and decisions. The court rejected Defendants' arguments that they did not breach the 2002 Purchase Agreement, finding that Defendants explicitly promised not to sell or otherwise affect the water rights in question, which they did by quitclaiming the rights to Moongate in 2012. The court also found Plaintiff's breach of contract action timely and rejected Defendants' claim that Plaintiff breached the agreement by not developing the Mendenhall rights, citing impossibility due to legal and regulatory barriers. On Plaintiff's cross-appeal, the court upheld the district court's measure of damages, finding on the fraud claim, and decisions on interest rates and attorney fees, noting that Plaintiff had requested the damages awarded and had not established reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations or entitlement to higher interest rates or attorney fees for litigation with Moongate.