L.K. Hollenbeak Logging v. Negus CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 18, 2020 No. C080527Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the appellant failed to establish pre-1914 appropriative water rights based on conduit usage, that the trial court was not required to quantify future water usage absent a request, and that the appointment of a special master was outside the scope of a statement of decision.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant lacked pre-1914 appropriative water rights for non-riparian land used as a water conduit.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to quantify the precise amount of water each party could divert.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the request to appoint a special master to resolve future disputes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a water user has not beneficially used water on a property merely because it used that property as a conduit to transport water to another property.”

“The Company never shows it asked the trial court for this particular relief, and so we decline to find the court erred in not addressing that issue.”

“The court thus rightly found “[t]he request for the appointment of a special master exceeds the scope of a request for statement of decision.””

Filed 12/18/20 L.K. Hollenbeak Logging v. Negus CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) ----

L. K. HOLLENBEAK LOGGING, CO., C080527

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Super. Ct. No. 12CV062) Appellant,

BRUCE NEGUS et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.

L.K. Hollenbeak Logging Company (the Company) sued two of its neighbors after they allegedly interfered with its ability to divert water from a creek. It later obtained a court ruling that granted it nearly everything it sought. The court recognized the Company’s right to divert water from the creek, awarded the Company damages for the water it lost, and enjoined the Company’s neighbors from further diverting water in a manner that would interfere with the Company’s water rights. In the Company’s view,

however, the court should have gone further; it should have found the Company’s water rights were more expansive, determined the precise quantity of water that each party could divert, and appointed a special master to resolve future issues between the parties. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND The parties all own land adjacent to a creek known as Big Creek in Trinity County, and they all divert water from the creek through a ditch that starts on the property of one landowner (named Richard Farmer) and then passes, along with the creek, through their respective properties. In 2012, the Company sued Bruce and Mike Negus because they allegedly interfered with the Company’s ability to divert water from the creek. According to the Company’s complaint, the Neguses trespassed onto the Company’s easement along the ditch, interfered with the Company’s efforts to clean and maintain the ditch, cut the Company’s locks and chains at the diversion point on Farmer’s property, and diverted water intended for the Company’s property, Big Creek Ranch. Based on this alleged conduct, the Company sought damages and injunctive relief. The Neguses, joined by Farmer and Glenda Harrison (collectively respondents), countersued the Company and Scott Murrison, the Company’s controlling shareholder. They alleged the Company and Murrison, among other things, damaged the ditch and interfered with respondents’ ability to use and maintain the ditch. Respondents sought damages, declaratory relief about the parties’ respective water rights and ditch rights, and injunctive relief prohibiting the Company and Murrison from modifying the ditch and limiting their use of the ditch. Following a bench trial, the court found largely in favor of the Company. Starting with the parties’ competing claims for damages, it first found “Bruce Negus trespassed on [the Company’s] property by removing locks at the diversion point which resulted in a loss of water to [the Company].” Based on this conduct, it awarded the Company

L.K. Hollenbeak Logging v. Negus CA3

AI Brief

L. K. HOLLENBEAK LOGGING, CO., C080527

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief