1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: A ugus t 2, 201 7 4 N O. 34, 655 5 BLUE CANYON WE LL ASSO CIATI ON, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 DEN ISE JEV NE, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 11 F ra nc is J . M at he w , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 So m m er, Karn es & Ass oc ia te s, LLP 13 Karl H . S omm er 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Graes er & M cQu een , LLC 17 Christoph er L . G raeser 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VA RGA S, Judge. 3 { 1} Inthi s a

ppe al w e ad dr es s w he the r Pl ai nti ff Bl ue Cany on W el l A sso ci at ion 4 (Blue Cany on) was a

legal entity

with c ap ac ity

to sue Def

endant Denise Jevne. 5 Sp ec if ic al ly , w e co nsi de r the appl ic ab ili ty of N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1 ( 1937 ) 6 to Blue Cany on’s c laim that it wa s entitled to bring the suit as an unin corporated 7 association. W e hold that B l u e Cany on’s le gal capacity to sue Jevne as an 8 unin corporated association is depen dent on it s com plian ce wi th statuto ry 9 re qui re m en ts, a nd b ec au se it fa ile d to co m ply w ith the sta tut or

y re qui re m en ts, Bl ue 10 Cany on l a c ke d t he c apa c i t y t o su e J e vn e . W e r e ve r se t he j ud gm e nt o f t he d i strict 11 co ur t an d re m an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 12 I. BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} T he m em

be rs of Bl ue Cany on and J ev ne a re a ll ow ne rs of r ea l pr ope rty

in 1 4 S a n t aF e C o u n t y

t h a tc l a i m

t o b e p a rt i e s t o aw e l l s h a r i n g a n de a s e m e n ta g r ee m en t 15 (the A gr ee m en t)

. Bl ue Cany on wa s for m ed to m ai nta in and m an ag e the w el l purs ua nt 16 to the Agree m ent. S om e y ears late r, a dispu te arose betw een Jevne and the other 17 ow ne rs r eg ar din g Je vne ’ s unpa id w at er w el l e xpe nse s. A s ar es ult , Bl ue Cany on 18 br ough t a

c la im a ga ins t Je vne in m ag ist rat e co urt, se ek ing $7, 651. 50 f or pa st d ue 19 bil ls, c ost s a sso ci at ed w ithw el l us e, a nd a tto rn ey f ee s and c ha rg es . T he c om plaint2

1 wa s sign ed, “ Blue Cany on W ell Ass’ n: Anna & Joe D urr, Frank & Billie Martinez, 2 Le sley King, President[. ] ” A fter a trial o n t he m erits, the m agistrate court entere d 3 j udgm ent awarding B l u e Cany on $2 ,600.00 in dam ages and $6,697.02 in atto rney 4 fe es . Je vne appe al ed

that j udgm en t t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt. 5 { 3} S h o rt l y a f

t e r J e v n e ap p e a l e d t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e i n d i v i du a l s w h o s i g ne d th e 6 com plaint on behalf of Blue Cany on ( collectively , Movants) filed a m otion in district 7 court, see king to am end the caption of the case in orde r t o “ p ro p erly identify 8 Pl ai nti ff

s” b y su bstitutin g th ei r na m es f or Bl ue Cany on. I n th e m oti on t o a m en d, 9 Mov an ts poin te d out that the y ha d e ac h si gne d th e co m

pla int a s in div idu al s onbe ha lf 10 of Blu e Cany on, b ut stated that “ while there is a W ell Agre em ent in the m atter, there 11 is n o B lue Cany on W el l A sso ci at ion pe r se . ” T he y the re fo re r eque st ed

that the y be 12 ide nti fi ed

a s P la int if

fs in Bl ue Cany on’ s plac e. Inopp osi ng the m oti on, Je vne saw the 13 m oti on a s an im

pr ope r at te m

pt t o e sta bli sh the D ur

rs ’ r igh t t o us e th e we ll. Je vne 14 claim ed that the Durr s wer e not a part of the A greem ent and wer e not valid us ers 15 w ith out

f ir st f ili ng a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t a ct ionto es ta bli sh the ir

status

. Je vne 16 re co gni ze d B lue Cany on’ s st at us a s an un inc or

por at ed a ss oc ia tio n and i ts p ow er to 17 sue an d co ll ect j udgm en ts, but r eque ste d th at

the appe al be dis m iss ed in lig ht o f 18 Movants’ denial of B lue Cany on’s e xistence.3

1 { 4} T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a he ar ing on Mov an ts’ m oti on to am en d an d or de re d th e 2 pa rt ie s to pr ovi de supp le m en ta l br ie fi ng. In Mo va nts ’ sup ple m en ta l br ie f, the y a ga in 3 as se rt ed

that B lue Cany on wa s “ not ale ga l e nti ty

pr ope rl y f orm ed und er S ec tio n 53

- 4 10- 1[ , ] ” an d as suc h, the y , ind ivi dua lly , w er e the pr ope r re al part ie s inint er es t i n th e 5 case. Having retained newcounsel, Jevne change d p o sition s in her suppl em ental 6 response, ar guin g that Blue Cany on wa s a n on-existent entity . Jevne a lso asserted that 7 Mov an ts’ m oti on w as a ct ua lly am oti on t o su

bst itu te part ie s w ith out

c om ply ing w ith 8 Ru le 1- 025 N MR

A a nd tha t the ca se m

ust be dis m iss ed

be ca use the j udgm en t i n f

av or 9 of a no n- ex is te nt en ti ty w as “ un co ll ect ib le .” 10 { 5} The district court denied Movants’ m otion to am end the caption and reje cted 11 Mov an ts’ c la im

that B lue Cany on d id n ot e xis t a s ale ga l e nti ty be ca use it ha d no t 12 com plied with the fil i n g re q uirem ent of Sec tion 5 3-10-1 for the cre ation of an 13 uni nc or

por at ed a sso ci at ion

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t the use of the w or d “ m ay ” in 14 Se ct ion53- 10-1 in dica te d th at f ili ng s ta te m en ts and o the r doc um en ts r ef er en ce d in 15 the statut e to c re at e anuni nc or por at ed a sso ci at ionis pe rm iss ive

. F oll ow ing ade nov o 16 tr ia l onthe m er its, t he di st ri ct c ourt e nte re d j udgm en t i n f av or of Bl ue Cany on and 17 en te red fi ndi ngs of

f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

law that the A gr ee m en t w as c re at ed in 18 Marc h 19 91, that B lue Cany on w as fo rm ed to carr y out the r equir em en ts o f the4

1 A gr ee m en t, a nd tha t B lue Cany on “ is an un inc or por at ed a sso ci at ionw iththe c ap ac ity 2 to su e an d b e su ed .” 3 { 6} Je vne f

ile d am oti on t o a m en d th e j udgm en t and a m ot ionf or ne w tr ia l, both 4 at t ac k i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ju d g m en t . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt h e l d a h ea ri n g o n J ev n e’s 5 p o s t -ju d g m en tm o t i o n s , d en yin g b o t h

. J ev n e ap p ea l s , c h al l en g i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 6 jud gm en t i n B lu e Can y on ’s fav or , as wel l as it s d en ia l o f th os e two m ot io ns . 7 II. DISC US SION 8 { 7} O n a

ppe al , Je vne c la im s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

w he n it he ld tha t B lue 9 Cany on w as auth or iz ed to m ai nta in this a ct iona s an un inc or por at ed a sso ci at ion 10 notw ith standi ng tha t B lue Cany on had not fi le d the doc um en ts des cr ibe d inS ec tio n 11 53- 10- 1 (s ta tut or

y doc um en ts) w ith the co unty cl er k. N owf or ce d to a rg ue apos iti on 12 contrary

to the posit ion they took in the district court, Blue Cany on first contends that 13 the district court correc tly held that the use of t he word “ m ay ” in the statute renders 14 the filing of any

statutory docum ents by Blue Cany on to be perm issiv e. Furtherm ore, 15 Bl ue Cany on arg ue s, be ca use uni nc or

por at ed a sso ci at ion s are re cogni ze d by both 16 sta tut e an d c om

m on l aw , it

is not r equir ed to co m ply w iththe statut or

y r equir em en ts 17 to be a co m

m on l awuni nc or

por at ed a sso ci at iona nd s ue in the na m e of the 18 as so ci at io n. We are n ot pe rs ua de d b y eit he r arg um en t.5

1 A . Sec ti on 53- 10- 1 R eq ui re s t he F ili ng of S ta tu to ry D oc um en ts t o F or m an 2 U ni nc or po ra te d A sso ci at ion 3 { 8} St atut or y in te rp ret at io n is an is su e of la w t ha t we rev ie w de n ov o. M oongate 4 W ater C o. v. City of Las Cruces , 2013-NMS C-018, ¶ 6, 302 P.3d 405. T he text of a 5 s t at u t e i s t h e “pr i m ar y, es s en t i a l s o u r c e o f i t s m ea n i n g [, ]” a n dwh er e a s t at u t e’s 6 langua ge is cl ear an d un am big uous , w e ar e re qui re d to “ giv e ef fe ct to tha t l an gua ge 7 and refr ain from

further statutory

interpretation.” N MSA 1978 , § 12-2A- 19 (1997 ); 8 Na t’ l E duc

. A ss’ n of N. M

. v. San ta F

e P ub. Sc hs. , 201 6- N MC A -0 09, ¶ 6, 365 P

. 3d 1 9 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 10 { 9} A c ourt’ s “pr im ar y goa l w he n in te rp re tin g astatut e is to gi ve e ff ec t t o th e 11 L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt[ , ] ” w hic h “ is to be de te rm ine d pr im ar ily by the langua ge of

the 12 ac t, a nd w or ds u se d inastatut e are to be giventhe ir or din ar y a nd u sua l m eanin g 13 unless a different intent is clearly indicated.” N. M

. B ldg

. & Co nstr. T

rades C ounc il 14 v. D ea n , 2015 -N MS C- 023, ¶ 11, 353 P

. 3d 1 212 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 15 om itt ed ); se e Sta te e

x re l. H el m an v . G all eg os , 199 4- N MS C- 023, ¶ 23, 117 N

. M. 346 , 16 871 P.2d 1352 . “ Whether w ords of statutes are m andatory or discretionary

is a m atter 17 of le gis la tiv e int en t t o be de te rm ine d by c onsi de ratio n of the pur pose sou ght

to be 18 accom

plish ed.” Sta te e

x re l. R obi nson v . Ki ng , 197 4- N MS C- 028, ¶ 10, 86 N

. M. 231 , 19 522 P. 2d 83 . W e int er pr et statut es “ to avoi d r en de ri ng the L eg isl at ur e’ s langua ge 20 superfluous .” B ak

er v . H ed str om , 2 0 1 3 -N M SC -0 4 3 , ¶2 4 , 3 0 9 P. 3 d1 0 4 7 . We6

1 co nsi de r al l part s of

the statut e tog ethe r, “ re ad [i ng] the statut e in its entir ety a nd 2 co nstru [i ng] e ac h part

in co nne ct ionw ithe ve ry oth er part to pr oduc e a ha rm oni ous 3 whole. ” Ke

y v. Ch ry sle r M oto rs C orp. , 199 6- N MS C- 038, ¶ 14, 121 N

. M. 764 , 918 4 P. 2d 3 50. 5 { 10} Se ct ion 53- 10- 1, au tho ri zi ng the fo rm at ion of uni nc or por at ed ass oc ia tio ns 6 pr ovi de s: 7 Whe ne ve r tw o or m or e pe rs ons sha ll de sir e to f orm a n a sso ci at ion 8 for t he pr om ot i on of t he i r m ut ua l pl e a sur e or r e c r e a t i on . . . or an 9 as soc ia ti on not f or the ind ivi dua l pr of

it of the m em be rs the re of

, a nd 10 w ith out

inc or por at ing the sa m e as ac or por at ion , or

m ai nta ini ng t itl e of 11 its property

in trust

. . .[ , t] he said persons or m em bers desiring to form 12 su ch an ass oc ia ti on . . . may file in the office of the county clerk . . . a 13 sta te m en t c ont ai nin g th e na m e of suc h a sso ci at ion , it s o bjec ts and 14 purpos es, t h e n am es and residences of the persons form ing su ch 15 as soc ia tio n, tog ethe r w ithac opy of it s art ic le s of

a sso ci at iona nd any 16 ru les an d/or r eg ula tio ns g ove rn ing the tr an sa ct ion s of it s ob j ec ts and 17 pur

pose s an d pr es cr ibi ng the te rm s by w hic h it s m em

be rs m ay m ai nta in 18 or

c ea se the ir

m em be rs hip the re in. 19 (E m phasis add ed.) W e acknowledge, an d t h e p arties ar e quick to po int ou t, that 20 ge ne ra lly , the w or ds “ sha ll” an d “ m ust ” exp re ss a “ duty , obl iga tio n, r equir em en t or 21 co nd it io n p rece de nt ” whi le “ m ay ” co nf ers a “ po wer, au th or it y , pri vi le ge or r ig ht .” 22 NMS A 197 8, § 1 2- 2A

- 4( A ) , ( B ) ( 19 97 )

. H ow e ve r , i n t hi s i ns t a nc e , t he p ower , 23 au tho ri ty , pr ivi le ge or r igh t si gna le d by

the use of the w or d “ m ay ” in the sta tut e is n ot 24 the pow er , au tho ri ty , pr ivi le ge , or ri ght to fi le doc um en ts. In ste ad , it is the righ t to 2 5 f o rm an a s s o c i a t i o n a s o p p o s e dt o ac o r p o r a t i o n , t r

u s t , o r o t h e r l e g a l l y v i ab l e e n t i t y.7

1 The plai n l an g u ag e o f Se ction 53 -10-1 clearly sets out th at w henever tw o or m ore 2 pe rs on s wishto fo rm a n a sso ci at ionf

or the li m ite d pu rp ose s de sc ri be d th er ei n 3 w ith out

inc or por at ing or m ai nta ini ng tit le to its pr ope rty in tru st, the n th ose pe rs ons 4 m ay do s o by fi lin g st at

uto ry doc um en ts w iththe c ounty cl er k. F or tho se int en din g 5 to c re at e ana sso ci at ion und er S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1, the f

ili ng o f sta tut or

y doc um en ts i s 6 m an da to ry . 7 { 11} T his int er

pr et at ionis co nsi ste nt w iththe pur pose of S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1. Whil e 8 avoid i n g s o m e o f the burdens and com plexities asso ciated w ith the form ation of a 9 co rp or at ionor

atr ust , S ec tio ns 5 3- 10- 1 to -8 (1 937, as am en de d thro ugh 1959 ) (the 10 A ct ), a llo w tho se inv olv ed in the li m ite d a ct ivi tie s de sc ri be d to en j oy the be ne fi ts o f 11 acting as a single unit rather than a g roup of i ndiv iduals, and lim it any rec overy of a 12 j udgm ent against the associatio n to i ts joint or com m on property , provided they 13 sa ti sf y it s ab br ev ia te d re qu ire m en ts

. 14 { 12} O the r se ct ion s of the A ct c onf irm the m an da tor

y na tur e of statut or y doc um en t 15 filing. First, unless th e filing of statutory docum ents to create an unin corporated 16 as soc ia tio n is m an da tor y , the de ta iled li st of

inf orm at ionto be inc lud ed in the 17 statutory

docum ents set out in Sec tion 5 3-10-1 would be unn ecessar y surplusage. 18 E ve n m or e pe rs ua siv e of the m an da tor

y na tur e of

the statut e is the langua ge in 19 Se ct ion 53- 10- 7, w hic h pr ovi de s, “ [a ] ny as soc ia tio n or cl ub fo rm ed under the 20 pr ovi sio ns o f [t

he A] ct . . . m ay

e xis t f or suc h pe ri od o f tim e not

e xc ee din g tw en ty8

1 y ears a s m ay

be fixedin the sta te m en t re qui re d to be f il ed bySe ct ion [ 53-10-1 ]. ” 2 (E m phasis add ed.) W ere we to int erpret the language related to the filing of statut ory 3 doc um en ts t o be pe rm iss ive , our int er pr et at ionw oul d r en de r Se ct ion53- 10- 1 a t od ds 4 with Sec tion 5 3-10-7 descr ibing the docum ent filing as “ required.” “ If statutes appear 5 to c onf lic t, the y m ust be c onstru ed , if poss ibl e, to g ive e ff ec t t o e ac h. ” N MS A 197 8, 6 § 1 2

- 2 A

- 1 0 ( A ) ( 1 9 9 7 )

. B y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s t a tu t o ry d o c u men tf i l i n g a s man d a t o ry, 7 w e av oid

ac onf lic t and g ive e ff

ec t t o th e pr ovi sio ns o f both S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1 and 8 Sect io n 5 3- 10 -7

. 9 { 13} Bl ue Cany on n ev er the le ss arg ue s th at

the Act is int en de d to be ge ne ra lly 10 perm issiv e and that equity requires us to interpret Sec tion 5 3-10-1 to au t h o rize 11 pe rm iss ive f

ili ng. W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d. Bl ue Cany on’ s argu m en t in th is r eg ar d is 12 larg el y

ba se d on an al te rn at ive re ad ing of the pla in l an gua ge in Se ct ion53- 10- 1. Bl ue 13 Cany on arg ue s th at

w e shou ld i nte rp re t S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1 so that the “ re qui re d to be 14 filed ” language is rendered functionally superfluous, reasoning that th e w ord 15 “ re qui re d” sim

ply “ doe s no t c ar

ry the sa m e w ei ght

or m ea sur e of

auth or ity ” as w or ds 16 like “ shall” and “ m ay .” Beca u se “ we ref rain fr om rea ding statutes in a way that 17 re nde rs pr ovi sio ns s upe rf luo us[ , ] ” w e de cl ine to fo l l o w B l u e Cany on’ s in te rp re ta tio n, 18 particularly

because an interpre tation th at fil i n g statutory docum ents is m andatory 19 gi ve s m ean in g a nd effe ctto each ter m us edin th e Act

. State ex r el

. E. N.M. Univ.9

1 Re gents v. B aca , 200 8- N MS C- 047, ¶ 10, 144 N

. M. 530 , 189 P

. 3d 6 63 ( de cl ini ng t o 2 interpret statute as perm issiv e w here doing so would render it superfluous). 3 B. Com m on Law Un incorporate d A ssociations Hav e N o Capacity t o Sue 4 { 14} Bl ue Cany on arg ue s th at it w as the pr ope r pa rty

to fi le su it a ga ins t Je vne 5 because N ewMexico lawrec ogni zes com m on law unin corporated associations . N ew 6 Mexico law, Blue Cany on contend s, per m its the form ation of unin corporated 7 as soc ia tio ns e ith er by co m m on law or unde r the A ct , and S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 5, c onf er ri ng 8 a ri ght to sue upo n uninc or

por at ed as soc ia tio ns, appl ie s to both st at uto ri ly c re at ed a nd 9 co m m on l awa sso ci at ion s. 10 { 15} O ur

S upr em e Co urt, how ev er , lon g a go r esolv ed the le ga l vi ab ili ty

of 11 uni nc or

por at ed as soc ia tio ns tha t w er e not sta tut or ily cr ea te d. I n F lan agan v . B en vi e , 12 1954 -N MS C- 074, ¶

7, 58 N

. M. 525 , 273 P

. 2d 3 81, the c ourt une qui voc al ly he ld, 13 “ un in co rp or at ed as so ci at io ns , c lu bs an d s oc ie ti es , unl es s re co gni ze d bysta tut e , ha ve 14 no l eg al ex is te nce[

. ] ” (E m pha sis a dde d. ) In F

lan agan , the Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at the 15 as soc ia tio n’ s f

ai lur e to o rg an iz e in a cc or da nc e w iththe statut e pr ec lud ed it f ro m 16 ta kin g a dvanta ge of

the ri ght co nf

er re d by the A ct to hol d pr ope rty

in the na m e of

the 17 as so ci at io n. Id

. ¶ 11. S im ilarl y , in State ex rel. O verton v. N .M . T ax Comm ’n , 196 9- 18 N MS C- 140, ¶

14, 81 N

. M. 28, 462 P

. 2d 6 13, our S upr em e Co urt fo und tha t a 19 co m m on l awuni nc or

por at ed a sso ci at ionf

orm ed to advoc at e fo r ta x e qui ty w as not10

1 a legal entity

and had no right to brin g an action unless its m em bers we re per

m itted 2 to do so as m em

be rs of a cla ss un de r Ru le 1-0 23 NMRA. 3 { 16} T he A ct

gr an ts unin co rp or at ed as soc ia tio ns f orm ed und er S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 1 a 4 se ri es of ri ght s, inc lud ing the ri ght to “ hol d an d ac qui re r ea l or pe rs ona l pr ope rty

by 5 de ed , le as e or oth er

w ise , in the na m e of

[ the ] a sso ci at ion , ” pur suant t o S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 6 2; the right to m ortgage or sell such property , c onvey ing it b y d ee d sign ed by an 7 officer of the association, pursuant to Section 53-10-3; and th e right to sue or be sued 8 in the na m e of the a sso ci at ion , w iththe c oll ec tio n of a ny m one y j udgm en t a ga ins t the 9 as soc ia tio n li m ite d to it s j oin t or c om m on p ro pe rty , pur suant t o S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 6. 10 Im plicit in b o t h the F

lan agan a nd O ve rto n de ci sio ns i s th e fa ct that an a sso ci at ion 11 w ish ing to ta ke a dvanta ge of the ri ght s c onf er re d up on u nin co rp or at ed

a sso ci at ion s 12 by the Le gislature, including the right to bring suit in the nam e of the association, can 13 on ly do s o b y

co m pl y in g wi th th e req ui rem en ts of S ect io n 5 3- 10 -1

. 14 { 17} A rg uin g th at

the A ct dis tin gui she s be tween co m m on l awa sso ci at ion s and 15 statutorilycre ated associations, Blue Cany on points out that som e sections of the Act 16 re fe r to an “ as soc ia tio n or c lub form ed

und er the p ro vi si on s of th[e] act , ” w hil e 17 Se ct ion53 -10- 6, c onf er ri ng a sso ci at ion s w iththe r igh t t o su e in the ir ow n nam es , 18 do es no t. Co m

pare § 5 3- 10 -7 , wi th § 53-10-6. Beca use Section 53-10-6 do es not refer 19 to a sso ci at ion s or

c lub s f orm ed und er the pr ovi sio ns o f the A ct , Bl ue Cany on 20 concludes th at the righ t t o s u e is statuto rily conferr ed on all unin corporated11

1 associations , whether form ed at com m on law o r b y

statute. L egislative silence, 2 however, “ is at best a t en u o u s guid e to determ ining legislative intent .” Swink v. 3 F ingado , 199 3- N MS C- 013, ¶ 29, 115 N

. M. 275, 850 P

. 2d 9 78. W e se e no r ea son to 4 al lowthe abse nc e of

the langua ge to outw ei gh i ts e xpl ic it langua ge that f ili ng 5 statutory

docum ents with the countyclerk is re quired to create a n unin corporated 6 as soc ia tio n. T o do so w oul d be to dis re ga rd our c an ons of

statut or y int er pr et at ion

. 7 { 18} O n a

ppe al , the part ie s do not di sp ute tha t ne ith er

Mo va nts nor

the ir 8 pr ed ec es sor s inint er es t e ve r fi le d the sta tut or y doc um en ts re qui re d by

S ec tio n 53 -1 0- 9 1 to form an unin corporated ass ociation. Instead, Blue Cany on’s f orm ation was based 10 on an unrecorded well sharing and easem ent agreem ent that did th at did not satisfy 11 the r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion53- 10- 1. Abse nt s uc h af ili ng, Bl ue Cany on c an not a va il 12 its el f of

the r igh ts c onf

er re d by the A ct , inc lud ing the r igh t t o su e gr an te d by S ec tio n 13 53- 10- 5. 14 { 19} Insum , in ord er to b ec om e aninc or por at ed a sso ci at ione nti tle d to e xe rc ise the 15 ri ght to sue , Bl ue Cany on w as r equire d to fi le the doc um en ts d el ine at ed in Se ct ion 16 53-10-1. Having failed to do so, we h old that Blue Cany on wa s not an un incorporated 17 as soc ia tio n unde r Se ct ion 53- 10- 1 an d ha d no le ga l ca pa ci ty to sue an d to obtai n 18 j udgm en t a ga ins t Je vne . A s B lue Cany on ’s la ck of c ap ac ity to sue is suf

fi ci en t f or 19 re ve rs al , w e ne ed

not r ea chJe vne ’ s arg um en t tha t B lue Cany on is not the r ea l party12

1 in i nte re st. T he j udgm en t i n f av or of Bl ue Cany on a ga ins t Je vne w as im pr ope rl y 2 en te red , is of n o e ffec t, an d m us t b e v acat ed

. 3 III. CON CLU SION 4 { 20} W e re ve rs e the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t co urt ins of ar as it gr an ts r el ie f in f

av or 5 of Bl ue Cany on ag ai nst Je vne , an d w e re m an d th is m at te r fo r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt 6 wit h t hi s o pi ni on . 7 { 21} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 8

____ ____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ __ 9 JU LI E J . V A R GA S, Ju dg e 10 WE CO NCUR:

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 12 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 14 J. M ILES HA NISE E, Judge