Summary 2007 WY 10

Summary of Decision issued January 18, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Wilson & Wilson v. Lucerne Canal and Power Co.

Citation: 2007 WY 10

Docket Number: 05-292

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Frank J. Jones of Wheatland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Jerry M. Smith of Jerry M. Smith Law Office, Torrington, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the Wilsons’ claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata or by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Whether the Wilsons’ claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Whether the district court erred in refusing to quiet title to the property in the Wilsons as against Lucerne. Whether the district court erred in ordering the Wilsons to pay Lucerne’s attorney’s fees.

Facts/Discussion:
Are the Wilsons’ claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata or by the doctrine of collateral estoppel? The district court’s final order contained the following conclusion: Lucerne uses the same diversion and channel it always has, and such use was recognized by the 1990 Consent Decree. Wilsons are precluded by collateral estoppel and res judicata from now challenging that use. Two features of the doctrines are significant in light of the circumstances of the present case: claim preclusion bars not just issues that were actually litigated in the prior action but issues that could have been raised in that action; and consent decrees are the equivalent of litigated judgments for purposes of res judicata. The Consent Decree was a recognition of Lucerne’s right to use the eastern channel. The 1988 litigation does not bar the Wilsons’ current desire to have the courts quiet title in them to the unpatented riparian lands. The 1988 litigation was fundamentally an access easement controversy. It did not directly implicate ownership of the lands that had “arisen” through natural redirection of the river. The question of whether the Wilsons gained ownership over the unpatented riparian lands was not so intertwined with the road access question as to require that it be litigated at the same time. The “island” exists as a parcel of no-longer-submerged land and the question of its ownership needs to be resolved.
Are the Wilsons’ claims barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel? The Court agreed with the district court’s application of judicial estoppel to the same extent that they agreed with its application of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The 1988 Consent Decree assumed Lucerne’s right to use the channel/canal to carry water from its diversion dam to its headgate. Therefore, the Wilsons are judicially estopped from taking a contrary position. On the other hand, the issues involved in the quiet title action that are now pending, in particular the question of reliction and the resultant ownership of formerly inundated lands were neither addressed nor resolved in the earlier litigation and judicial estoppel does not bar the present litigation of those issues.
Did the district court err in refusing to quiet title to the property in the Wilsons as against Lucerne? When a trial court has made express findings of fact and conclusions of law in a bench trial, the Court reviews the factual determinations under the clearly erroneous standard and the legal conclusions de novo. The Wilsons sought to quiet title to the lands underlying the old eastern channel of the river and the lands lying between that channel and the western channel. The district court found and concluded the eastern channel continues to be a river channel and the Wilsons had failed to prove that accretion had occurred. The Court defined reliction and accretion and stated the facts presented in the record clearly reveal the claims are based upon the doctrine of reliction rather than accretion. The essential finding and conclusion of the district court was that the Wilsons failed to prove the eastern channel no longer was a river channel, and failed to prove that reliction had occurred. A complete review of the record convinced the Court those findings and conclusions were erroneous. The facts lead to the conclusion that reliction had occurred and that title to the property should be quieted in the Wilsons. However, that conclusion does not answer the entire question and should not be construed as contradictory to the Court’s earlier conclusion regarding estoppel and res judicata. The stipulated resolution of the earlier proceedings included the presumption that Lucerne had the right to transport sufficient water down the eastern channel, now operated in fact as an irrigation canal, to operate its lower diversion and headgate at a fully functional level, including the right to release necessary overflow back into the North Platte River. Consequently, the Wilsons’ title to the property must be subject to that right.
Holding: The Court affirmed the conclusion of the district court that the Wilsons are barred from relitigating the issue of Lucerne’s right to transport water from its upper division dam to its lower headgate. As to the issue of quiet title the Court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for an entry of an order quieting title to the property in the Wilsons subject to the right of Lucerne to transport water from its diversion dam to its headgate and beyond. If the precise location of such easement cannot be stipulated, the district court shall take additional evidence to identify the precise location including the survey originally ordered by the district court in its January 10, 1989 order. These conclusions lead to the additional conclusion that the district court erred in ordering the Wilsons to pay Lucerne’s attorney’s fees and that portion of the judgment was also reversed. The record does support the district court’s conclusion that Lucerne did not establish its damage claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2va8o5 .