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 retained water rights on a property they sold to the Defendants. They later claimed that they required an easement across the Defendants' property to access these water rights. The dispute arose over whether an express easement existed to allow such access.
Procedural History
- District Court, September 10, 2008: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiffs did not have an easement on the Defendants' property to access their retained water rights.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that newly discovered evidence, specifically a 1962 Declaration, established an express easement for accessing their retained water rights. They also claimed that their failure to discover this evidence earlier was due to excusable neglect and that exceptional circumstances warranted relief under Rule 1-060(B).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the Declaration did not create an express easement and that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the legal standards for relief under Rule 1-060(B). They argued that the Plaintiffs' claims of mistake, excusable neglect, and exceptional circumstances were insufficient to justify setting aside the prior judgment.
Legal Issues
- Did the Plaintiffs meet the requirements for relief under Rule 1-060(B)(1), (2), or (6) to set aside the summary judgment?
- Does the 1962 Declaration establish an express easement for the Plaintiffs to access their retained water rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for relief under Rule 1-060(B).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Michael E. Vigil and Robert E. Robles, JJ., concurring):
-
Rule 1-060(B)(2) (Newly Discovered Evidence): The Court found that the 1962 Declaration did not establish an express easement. An express easement requires clear and definite language showing an intent to grant such a right, which was absent in the Declaration. The Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence would "probably change" the result of the litigation.
-
Rule 1-060(B)(1) (Mistake or Excusable Neglect): The Court held that even if the Plaintiffs' failure to discover the Declaration earlier was excusable, the Declaration did not establish an easement. Therefore, the Plaintiffs could not show that the outcome of the case would have been different.
-
Rule 1-060(B)(6) (Exceptional Circumstances): The Plaintiffs argued that their water rights were constitutionally protected and required an easement for access. However, the Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting relief, as the language of the Declaration did not support the creation of an easement.
-
Standard of Review: The Court acknowledged that the district court applied an incorrect standard ("substantial likelihood" instead of "probably change") but concluded that this error was harmless because the Declaration did not establish an easement, and the outcome would not have changed.