Title: CRESCENT H HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CRESCENT H ASSOCIATION OF HOMEOWNERS, INC. and JONES HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CRESCENT H HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CRESCENT H ASSOCIATION OF HOMEOWNERS, INC. and  JONES HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company2009 WY 153222 P.3d 134Case Number: No. S-07-0275Decided: 12/14/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
CRESCENT 
H HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

 
 
Appellant

(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
CRESCENT 
H ASSOCIATION OF HOMEOWNERS, INC.,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant),

 
 
and

 
 
JONES 
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company,

 
 
Appellee

(Intervenor-Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

 
 
Brent 
R. Cohen, Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP, Casper, Wyoming; William Phillip 
Schwartz, Ranck & Schwartz, Jackson, Wyoming.  Argument by 
Mr. Cohen.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee, Crescent H Association of Homeowners, 
Inc.:

 
 
Jessica 
Rutzick, Rutzick Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee, Jones Holdings, LLC:

 
 
Jennifer 
Ann Golden and Andrea L. Richard, The Richard Law Firm, PC, Jackson, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. 
Golden.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ., and JAMES, D.J. 

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

[¶1]        
This 
appeal involves a dispute between two homeowner associations regarding 
regulation of fishing and land use activities within Crescent H Ranch.  Crescent H Homeowners Association, Inc. 
(First Filing Association) contends that it and Crescent H Association of 
Homeowners, Inc. (Fourth Filing Association) formed a contract that made them 
jointly responsible for creating and enforcing rules governing recreational 
activities on the Ranch.  The Fourth 
Filing Association and Intervenor, Jones Holdings, LLC, assert that the Fourth 
Filing Association has the sole right to regulate these activities.  The district court granted summary 
judgment in favor of the Fourth Filing Association and Jones Holdings.  We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]        
The 
First Filing Association presents these issues:

1.         
Whether the district court erred in finding that the Rules and 
Regulations did not form a valid contract between the First Filing Association 
and the Fourth Filing Association.

                        
a.         
Whether the district court erred in finding that there was no 
consideration exchanged to support a binding contract.

                        
b.         
Whether the district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence in 
finding that the Rules and Regulations were "merely an iteration of existing 
rules."

2.         
Whether the district court erred in finding that the First Filing 
Association and the Fourth Filing Association exceeded their authority by 
adopting the Rules and Regulations governing fishing and other recreational 
amenities at Crescent H Ranch.

                        
a.         
Whether the district court erred in considering the issue of authority in 
the context of a contractual dispute.

                        
b.         
Whether the district court erred in ignoring the authority granted to the 
First Filing Association and the Fourth Filing Association under their CC&Rs 
to adopt the Rules and Regulations.

3.         
Whether the district court erred in ruling that the Fourth Filing 
Association, as assignee of the Licensor, has sole authority to regulate fishing 
and other recreational amenities at the Crescent H Ranch.

FACTS

[¶3]        
The 
1,300 acre Crescent H Ranch in Wilson, Wyoming is home to two residential 
developments, the First Filing development and the Fourth Filing 
development.  The Crescent H Guest 
Ranch (Guest Ranch) sits on an approximately 55 acre tract of land in the Fourth 
Filing development.  The origin of 
the fishing and recreational use rights at issue in this case dates back to the 
early development of the Crescent H Ranch residential properties by Donald H. 
Albrecht.  Mr. Albrecht purchased 
the Crescent H Ranch in 1964 and then in 1981 conveyed it to Rivermeadows 
Associates, Ltd. (RMA), a limited partnership of which Mr. Albrecht was the sole 
general partner.  Mr. Albrecht and 
RMA continued to operate the Guest Ranch and, in 1985, they filed a "Declaration 
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Crescent H Guest Ranch" and began 
developing the First Filing residential subdivision. 

[¶4]        
With 
the purchase of a lot in the First Filing development, each purchaser received 
fishing rights, along with other amenities including access to Guest Ranch 
services and access to hiking trails.  
The fishing and recreational use rights conveyed varied among the First 
Filing homeowners, both in terms of the rights and amenities conveyed and in the 
manner in which the rights were documented.  The variations in the fishing and 
recreational use rights came to a head in the mid-1990s as a result of RMA's 
bankruptcy in January 1995.  Several 
First Filing homeowners initiated an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court to 
confirm their fishing and recreational use rights.  The homeowners' adversary proceeding was 
resolved pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Resolving Homeowners Issues 
(Bankruptcy Settlement), dated June 23, 1997.  The parties to the Bankruptcy Settlement 
were the Bankruptcy Trustee, all First Filing homeowners, and Countryside I, 
LLC.  Countryside was a party to the 
Bankruptcy Settlement because the Bankruptcy Court had in February 1997, prior 
to resolution of the homeowners' issues, approved the sale of Crescent H Ranch 
to Countryside.

[¶5]        
The 
Bankruptcy Settlement confirmed the homeowners' fishing and recreational use 
rights and provided for the creation and recording of a new Fishing License and 
a new Use Agreement that would supersede and replace all other instruments or 
provisions purporting to govern the fishing and recreational use rights.  The Bankruptcy Settlement provided, in 
relevant part:

(a)       Fishing 
Licenses.  Upon entry of an 
order approving this settlement, Countryside will sell, grant and convey to each 
of the Homeowners a fishing license in the form of Exhibit B (the "New Fishing 
License").  The New Fishing License 
shall be an interest in real property and shall have provisions for appropriate 
recording in the real property records. * * *

(b)       Use 
Agreement.  Countryside and each 
of the Homeowners will execute a Use Agreement in the form of Exhibit C (the 
"New Use Agreement").  The New Use 
Agreement shall grant "Riparian Use Rights" (as defined therein), which shall 
constitute an interest in real property and shall have provisions for 
appropriate recording in the real property records.

[¶6]        
All 
First Filing homeowners consented to the Bankruptcy Settlement and the 
Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the settlement.  The Bankruptcy Court entered an Order of 
Dismissal with Prejudice of the homeowners' adversary litigation on April 20, 
1998.  In keeping with the terms of 
the Bankruptcy Settlement, Countryside issued to all First Filing homeowners new 
Fishing License and Use Agreements.  
Memoranda of the two Agreements were recorded in the Teton County land 
records.

[¶7]        
The 
new Fishing License and Use Agreements designated each respective homeowner as 
Licensee, and Countryside as Licensor.  
The new Fishing License Agreement reserved to the Licensor the authority 
and discretion to regulate the fishing rights, provided the regulations were 
"applicable on a nondiscriminatory basis to Licensor, its guests and all current 
and future licensees."  The new Use 
Agreement contained a similar provision providing for regulation of the 
recreational use rights.  Neither 
Agreement identified any other entity authorized to regulate fishing and 
recreational use rights.

[¶8]        
While 
the new Fishing License Agreement was being negotiated, finalized, and issued, 
Countryside, as the new owner of Crescent H Ranch, began development of the 
Fourth Filing residential subdivision.  
As required by the Bankruptcy Settlement, Countryside conveyed with each 
parcel fishing and recreational use rights in the form of the new Fishing 
License and Use Agreements.  On June 
25, 1997, Countryside filed a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and 
Restrictions for Crescent H' Ranch Parcels" for the Fourth Filing 
subdivision.    

[¶9]        
In 
the summer of 1997, the two homeowner associations sent a letter to each of the 
property owners.  The letter stated, 
in part:

In 
view of the changes in ownership associated with the numerous resales and sales 
of original "Crescent H First Filing" Lots, the sale of the residual portion of 
the Ranch to Countryside L.L.C. and the subsequent sales of certain large 
parcels and the creation of the new Crescent H Association of Homeowners for 
these new "Crescent H Ranch Parcels", it is an appropriate time to restate and 
codify the Rules and Regulations regarding use of the riparian lands, upland 
trails and First Filing Open Space and Ranch and Recreation 
parcels.

A 
copy of these Rules and Regulations is enclosed with this letter for your 
information and guidance.

A 
subsequent set of revised Rules and Regulations was circulated to the homeowners 
in July 1998.  Neither the 1997 nor 
the 1998 set of Rules and Regulations is recorded in the Teton County land 
records.  

[¶10]     
In 
December 2000, the Fourth Filing Association filed an action against Countryside 
for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which it challenged Countryside's 
recording of an amendment to the Fourth Filing CC&Rs that would remove the 
Guest Ranch from the Fourth Filing.  
The litigation was resolved with the execution of a Mutual Release and 
Settlement Agreement.  The 
Settlement Agreement required the recording of amended CC&Rs and, upon sale 
of the Guest Ranch, the assignment to the Fourth Filing Association of 
Countryside's rights and obligations "to maintain, repair and operate the riding 
and recreation trails and the fishing amenities and the right to collect ranch 
and recreation fees."

[¶11]     
The 
Fourth Filing homeowners and Countryside executed the amended Fourth Filing 
CC&Rs and, on July 23, 2002, those CC&Rs were recorded in the Teton 
County land records.  The amended 
Fourth Filing CC&Rs provided authority for the Fourth Filing Association to 
adopt and enforce regulations governing the fishing and recreational use 
rights.  In 2002, the First Filing 
Association also amended its CC&Rs.  
Those amended covenants were recorded in the Teton County land records on 
October 11, 2002.

[¶12]     
In 
November 2002, Countryside sold its interests in the Crescent H Ranch, including 
the Guest Ranch, to Jones Holdings.  
Contemporaneous with that transaction, Countryside executed an Assignment 
of its regulatory rights under the Fishing License and Use Agreements to the 
Fourth Filing Association.  Countryside reserved and assigned all 
other rights as Licensor under the Fishing License and Use Agreements to Jones 
Holdings.

[¶13]     
On 
June 2, 2006, the First Filing Association filed this action for declaratory 
relief seeking a declaration that the Rules and Regulations are a binding 
contract that requires the Fourth Filing Association to share regulatory 
authority of the Crescent H Ranch fishing and recreational use rights with the 
First Filing Association.  Both 
parties filed motions for summary judgment.  Jones Holdings, in an attempt to 
preserve its rights under the Fishing License and Use Agreements, filed a motion 
to intervene.  The district court 
granted that motion.  Jones Holdings 
also filed a motion for summary judgment.  
The parties completed additional discovery and summary judgment briefing 
and the district court heard argument on the motions.

[¶14]     
The 
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Jones Holdings and the 
Fourth Filing Association.  In so 
ordering, the district court found that:

[F]ishing 
and other recreational amenities on the Crescent H are controlled by the Fishing 
License and Use Agreements, which constitute enforceable easements on all 
parcels within the Crescent H.  The 
easements dictate that the authority to regulate fishing and recreation lies in 
the hands of the Licensor, which is currently the Fourth Filing Association, 
that is, Defendant Crescent H Association of Homeowners, Inc.  As Licensor, Crescent H Association of 
Homeowners, Inc. may regulate the amenities so long as it is done in a 
non-discriminatory manner.

The 
court specifically rejected the First Filing Association's claim that the Rules 
and Regulations entitled it to joint regulatory authority:

The 
Court finds that the "Crescent H Ranch Rules and Regulations" do not constitute 
a valid contract binding on the homeowners associations and residents because 
there was no consideration exchanged; the document was merely an iteration of 
existing rules.  Further, the Rules 
and Regulations exceeded the authority of the parties who promulgated the rules 
by attempting to grant both homeowners associations the power to regulate 
recreation amenities.  Such an 
assignment of rights does not conform to the requirements of the Fishing License 
and Use Agreements.

The 
First Filing Association filed this appeal.

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶15]     
Our 
standard of review for summary judgment is well 
established:

Summary 
judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and 
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  W.R.C.P. 56(c); Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, 
Inc., 2002 WY 21, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 2002).  "A genuine issue of material fact exists 
when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would establish or refute an essential 
element of a cause of action or a defense that the parties have asserted."  Id.  Because summary judgment involves a 
purely legal determination, we undertake de novo review of a trial court's 
summary judgment decision.  Glenn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WY 
16, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 640, 642 (Wyo. 2008).

Jacobs 
Ranch Coal Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 
2008 WY 101, ¶ 8, 191 P.3d 125, 128-29 (Wyo. 2008).  This standard applies equally in actions 
for declaratory judgment.  See, e.g., Laughter v. Board of County Comm'rs for 
Sweetwater County, 2005 WY 54, ¶ 9, 110 P.3d 875, 879 (Wyo. 2005).  See also Coffinberry v. Board of County 
Comm'rs of County of Hot Springs, 2008 WY 110, ¶ 3, 192 P.3d 978, 979-80 
(Wyo. 2008).

[¶16]     
In 
reviewing a summary judgment, the Court examines the record from the vantage 
point most favorable to the party opposed to the motion, giving that party the 
benefit of all favorable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the 
record.  Vollan v. Wyoming Bd. of Dental 
Examiners, 2007 WY 132, ¶ 5, 165 P.3d 103, 104 (Wyo. 2007).  The Court evaluates the propriety of the 
judgment using the same standards and same materials used by the district 
court.  Id.  The Court accords no deference to the 
lower court decision.  Id.  The Court may uphold a grant of summary 
judgment upon any proper legal ground finding support in the record.  In re HC, 983 P.2d 1205, 1209 (Wyo. 
1999) (citing Ahearn v. Anderson-Bishop 
Partnership, 946 P.2d 417, 422 (Wyo. 1997)).  

DISCUSSION

[¶17]     
The 
material facts are generally not in dispute.  The parties differ as to the legal 
significance of those facts.  The 
Fishing License and Use Agreements at issue resulted from settlement of an 
adversarial bankruptcy proceeding initiated by several of the homeowners in 
Crescent H Ranch, First Filing.  The 
Bankruptcy Settlement detailed the background leading to the 
settlement:

C.        The 
Homeowners each own real property and improvements on land adjacent to the 
Property, which was originally part of the Crescent H Ranch.  The Homeowners purchased their 
properties at various times over the past fifteen years.  In connection with the sales, and as an 
inducement thereto, the Debtor and its officers and agents, including Donald H. 
Albrecht and his sons Scott Albrecht and Richard Albrecht, granted the 
Homeowners various fishing and access rights to the Property as well as rights 
to use the amenities connected with the Crescent H Guest Ranch (collectively, 
the "Fishing, Riparian Use and Guest Service Rights").

D.        The 
documentation of the Fishing, Riparian Use and Guest Service Rights varied 
substantially among the Homeowners.  
Although most, but not all, of the grants of Fishing Rights were 
reflected in legal documents, there were substantial differences.  Thus, (i) some documents were signed and 
notarized, some signed, and some unsigned; (ii) the rights granted and various 
conditions for use differed, as did other terms of the agreements, and (iii) 
some rights were recorded, some rights were not recorded but are described in 
recorded documents, and some rights were unrecorded.  In all, there are several combinations 
of rights and claims.  As for the 
Riparian Use and Guest Service Rights, there were fewer written agreements, and 
some variation in those that do exist.

E.        The 
legal status of the fishing licenses is complex.  The legal issues include, but are not 
limited to: (i) whether the grants give rise to interests in real property or 
revocable licenses, (ii) whether the grants are executory contracts which could 
be rejected in bankruptcy, (iii) whether some of the grants can be avoided 
because of inadequate documentation or based on the avoidance powers of sections 
544 et seq. of the Bankruptcy Code, (iv) whether, assuming the interests can 
ordinarily be revoked or avoided, the Trustee can assert such rights in this 
case since the estate is solvent and, in any event, whether the Homeowners have 
various legal or equitable defenses, (v) whether, assuming some interests can be 
revoked or avoided, this gives rise to damage claims of the Homeowners and, if 
so, how damages might be determined.  
There is very little authority on any of these questions, and it cannot 
be gainsaid that litigation would be lengthy, complex and expensive.  In addition, one possible outcome, is 
that different Homeowners and neighbors would wind up with significantly 
different rights.  The issues 
regarding the Riparian Use and Guest Services agreements include validity, 
enforceability, ability to reject, and damages.

F.         
To confirm their Fishing, Riparian Use and Guest Service Rights, many of 
the Homeowners joined in filing an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court, 
entitled MacLean, et al. v. Rivermeadows 
Associates, Ltd., (No. 96-1011), on October 17, 1996.  Thereafter, the Trustee and several of 
the Homeowners entered into a tolling agreement with respect to the rights of 
the Trustee in such matters, with a view to attempt[] to negotiate an overall 
resolution of these issues.  These 
negotiations were initially conducted between the Homeowners and Countryside, 
since the Trustee believed Countryside, as the prospective purchaser, had the 
paramount interest in any arrangement which was to extend into the future.  Thereafter, the Trustee participated 
actively in the final negotiation and documentation of these 
matters.

G.        On 
June 13, 1997, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the sale of the 
Property to Countryside's predecessor, Countryside, LLC.  Under the Court's order, the sale shall 
not be free and clear of the Fishing, Riparian Use and Guest Service Rights 
alleged by the Homeowners.

H.        The 
parties have entered into this Agreement to settle and resolve all matters 
connected with the Homeowners' Fishing, Riparian Use and Guest Service 
Rights.

[¶18]     
With 
regard to the new fishing licenses, the parties specifically agreed 
that:

(a)       Fishing 
Licenses.  Upon entry of an 
order approving this settlement, Countryside will sell, grant and convey to each 
of the Homeowners a fishing license in the form of Exhibit B (the "New Fishing 
License").  The New Fishing License 
shall be an interest in real property and shall have provisions for appropriate 
recording in the real property records.  
The order approving this Settlement Agreement (the "Approval Order") 
shall specifically provide that the New Fishing Licenses are valid, effective, 
and enforceable. 

 
 
The 
sample license attached to the Bankruptcy Settlement identified Countryside as 
the "Licensor."  As mentioned 
previously, all First Filing homeowners consented to the Bankruptcy Settlement 
and it was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.  Countryside, as Licensor, subsequently 
issued the Fishing License and Use Agreements to all First Filing 
homeowners.  Similar Agreements were 
subsequently issued to Fourth Filing property owners.  These facts are 
undisputed.

 
 

[¶19]     
It 
is also undisputed that the Fishing License Agreement identified the Licensor as 
the regulating authority:

 
 
Licensor 
shall have the power to regulate the fishing rights and privileges so long as 
such regulations are applicable on a nondiscriminatory basis to Licensor, its 
guests and all current and future licensees.  The regulations which may be adopted by 
Licensor may include, but are not limited to:

a.         
If in the opinion of Licensor the fishing pressure becomes excessive, to 
the extent that the quality of the fishing experience is adversely affected, 
Licensor may restrict fishing to limited sections of the Fishing Waters for 
specific times or days in order to avoid overcrowding of, or excessive pressure 
on, the fishing habitats.  Licensor 
may also limit or restrict (but not prohibit) fishing as may be required if the 
number of persons fishing threatens the wildlife habitat or otherwise may 
interfere with the tranquil and bucolic nature of the Riparian 
Lands.

 
 
. 
. .           

 
 
c.         
Licensor may prohibit Licensee from fishing along a one hundred-yard 
stretch of water in front of a residence, provided, however, that Licensee may 
fish along the opposite bank.

 
 
The 
Fishing License Agreement does not purport to convey regulatory authority to any 
entity other than the Licensor.  It 
does, however, contemplate transfer of the Licensor's rights and obligations 
under the Agreement: 

 
 
a.         
Licensor specifically reserves the right to transfer its rights and 
obligations under this Agreement to its successor or assigns, under an 
instrument specifically designating such successor or assigns as a successor or 
assign under this Agreement, and any new successor or assign will be subject to 
the obligations and receive the benefits of the terms and conditions contained 
herein.

[¶20]     
It 
is undisputed that Countryside was the original Licensor identified in the 
Bankruptcy Settlement.  Countryside 
subsequently executed two Assignments of its rights and obligations as 
Licensor.  The Assignment to Jones 
Holdings assigned all rights of Countryside as Licensor but specifically 
excluded "all rights assigned" to the Fourth Filing Association "by assignment 
dated November 21, 2002."  In that 
document, Countryside assigned to the Fourth Filing 
Association:

 
 
[T]he 
right to regulate fishing on the Fishing Waters at the Riparian Lands of 
Crescent H Ranch, as specifically defined in the Fishing License Agreements and 
reserved to Assignor (as Licensor), under Section Two of such Fishing License 
Agreements executed with landowners at Crescent H Ranch, except that the 
exercise of any assigned rights under Section Two (b) of the Fishing License 
Agreements shall require written consent of Assignor or its successor.  This Assignment shall also include the 
right to enforce collection of the Base Annual Fees as provided in Section Four 
of the Use Agreements.

 
 
Based 
upon these Assignments, the district court determined that Countryside had 
assigned its rights to regulate "fishing and recreation" to the Fourth Filing 
Association.  The First Filing 
Association does not challenge this finding.1 

 

[¶21]     
In 
summary, it is undisputed that the new Fishing License and Use Agreements 
provided regulatory authority to the Licensor.  The First Filing Association has never 
been designated as a Licensor or been assigned any rights as a Licensor "under 
an instrument specifically designating such successor or assigns as a successor 
or assign" as required by the new Fishing License and Use Agreements.  The First Filing Association does not 
dispute these facts.  Instead, it 
bases its claim of joint regulatory authority upon a 1997 document entitled, 
"Crescent H Ranch Rules and Regulations."  
The First Filing Association contends that this document is a binding 
contract that requires the Fourth Filing Association to jointly share regulatory 
authority.  The district court 
rejected that claim and so do we.

 
 

[¶22]     
There 
is no dispute that a 1997 document entitled "Crescent H Ranch Rules and 
Regulations" exists.  There does not 
appear to be any dispute that it was amended in 1998.  The parties differ on whether that 
document is a contract that provides the First Filing Association with 
regulatory authority over fishing and recreation rights on the 
property.

 
 

[¶23]     
We 
note that the document does not have the usual indicies of a contract.  It is not signed by anyone.  It does not identify the parties 
entering into the alleged agreement.  
It does not recite the specific consideration for the agreement or 
specify that the alleged agreement was supported by any consideration.  The document does not reflect that there 
was any negotiated exchange of performance.  The letter accompanying the document 
that was sent to the lot owners stated that the document was created "to restate 
and codify the Rules and Regulations."    

 
 

[¶24]     
The 
First Filing Association contends that pursuant to the Rules and Regulations, 
the First Filing Association and the Fourth Filing Association "consented to 
forebear from exercising whatever rights they might unilaterally assert to 
regulate fishing and other recreational activities at the Crescent H 
Ranch."  The First Filing 
Association, however, identifies no specific language in the Rules and 
Regulations that supports that allegation.  
More significantly, the First Filing Association ignores the plain and 
unambiguous language of the new Fishing License and Use 
Agreements.

 
 

[¶25]     
The 
Bankruptcy Settlement resulted from adversary litigation that was initiated by 
the First Filing Association lot owners in order to protect their fishing and 
recreational use rights in the property.  
That litigation culminated in a settlement mandating uniform Fishing 
License and Use Agreements.  The 
Bankruptcy Settlement was signed by all First Filing lot owners and memoranda of 
the Agreements were recorded in the Teton County land records.  The Bankruptcy Settlement was approved 
by the Bankruptcy Court and the adversary action was dismissed with 
prejudice.

 
 

[¶26]     
The 
Bankruptcy Settlement specifically states:  

 
 
The 
New Fishing Licenses and New Use Agreements shall supersede and replace all 
existing fishing licenses, access rights and amenity use agreements of the 
Homeowners, and all such existing agreements shall be null and 
void.

As 
of April 1998, all First Filing property owners had agreed that their fishing 
and use rights were to be governed by the new uniform Fishing License and Use 
Agreements.  Those Agreements gave 
regulatory authority only to the Licensor.  
It is undisputed that the First Filing Association is not a 
Licensor.

 
 

[¶27]     
The 
district court correctly determined that regulatory authority is governed by the 
new Fishing and Use Agreements and that regulatory authority has been assigned 
to the Fourth Filing Association.  
The First Filing Association has failed to establish any genuine issue of 
material fact entitling it to joint regulatory authority.  In light of this determination, we need 
not address other issues raised by the First Filing Association.  Summary judgment was properly 
granted.

 
 

[¶28]     
Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1Jones 
Holdings, who had also received an Assignment from Countryside, agrees with this 
finding: "The history and plain terms of the Fishing License and Use Agreements 
lead inevitably to the result reached by the District Court:  the authority to regulate Crescent H 
Ranch fishing and recreational use rights is vested in the Fourth Filing 
Association.  The Court should 
therefore uphold the District Court decision granting summary judgment to the 
Fourth Filing Association and Jones Holdings."