Opinion ID: 2638546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: grcc's cross-appeal

Text: ¶ 38 In 1999, Thayn obtained a temporary restraining order and sought a preliminary injunction to stop construction work on the 40-foot wall built by GRCC across the head of the raceway. After the hearing on Thayn's motion for a preliminary injunction, the trial court found that any injury suffered by Thayn was not irreparable. The trial court found that any damage to Thayn's canal as a result of the 40-foot wall could be assessed and compensated for in money damages. That is, even if GRCC's conduct was wrongful, the appropriate relief was to seek a remedy at law, rather than the equitable remedy of an injunction. The trial court therefore denied the application for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order. At issue now is whether GRCC can recover reasonable attorney fees and other litigation expenses for fighting the imposition of a preliminary injunction rather than fighting to dissolve the wrongfully-issued temporary restraining order. We find that GRCC can recover its fees and expenses. ¶ 39 The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allow a wrongfully restrained party to recover attorney fees incurred in connection with a temporary restraining order or injunction. Utah R. Civ. P. 65A(c)(2); Beard v. Dugdale, 741 P.2d 968 (Utah Ct.App.1987); see also McAtee v. Faulkner Land & Livestock, 113 Idaho 393, 744 P.2d 121 (Ct.App.1987) (interpreting Idaho R. Civ. P. 65(c), which employs similar language to the Utah rule). Fighting the imposition of a preliminary injunction is a collateral attack on an existing temporary restraining order. IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Crook, 2000 UT App 217, ¶ 22, 6 P.3d 1143 (Utah Ct.App.2000). Moreover, the temporary restraining order must be dissolved if the trial court refuses to allow the order to be enforced as a preliminary injunction. Utah R. Civ. P. 65A(b)(3). In Ikon Office Solutions, the court of appeals held that requiring a party to bring a separate motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, apart from its defense against a preliminary injunction, would be duplicative, costly, and probably futile. Id. at ¶ 14. Here, when GRCC attacked the preliminary injunction, they were also attacking the temporary restraining order. The language of the trial court's order demonstrates this clearly: The Temporary Restraining Order is dissolved and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is denied. Because GRCC effectively defeated a wrongfully issued restraining order by attacking its enforcement as a preliminary injunction, GRCC is entitled to its attorney fees. ¶ 40 GRCC may also recover other expenses incurred in fighting the preliminary injunction, including expert witness fees. We see no rationale for allowing recovery of attorney fees but denying other litigation expenses. The use of costs and damages in Rule 65A(c) has always been interpreted more broadly than traditional limitations on the term costs. See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Atkin, Wright, & Miles, Chartered, 681 P.2d 1258, 1262 (Utah 1984) (allowing recovery of attorney fees in damages under Rule 65A(c) before the amendment of the statute explicitly allowed such recovery); but see Frampton v. Wilson, 605 P.2d 771, 774 (Utah 1980) (limiting the definition of the term costs to fees which are required to be paid to the court and to witnesses, and for which the statutes authorize to be included in the judgment, excluding expert witness fees). Like attorney fees, these were costs incurred as a direct result of a wrongful enjoinder. We therefore find that Rule 65A(c) is sufficiently broad to include recovery of the litigation expenses sought by GRCC. [11] ¶ 41 Finally, we note that the preliminary injunction was not wrongfully denied. The trial court based its denial partially on Thayn's lack of an underlying claim related to the subject of the preliminary injunction. Thayn argues that he was wrongfully denied a counterclaim that would have given him a basis for this preliminary injunction. However, this does not alter the validity of the denial of the preliminary injunction itself. The trial court primarily based its denial on the fact that any harm Thayn suffered was not irreparable. The lack of an underlying claim was not essential to the denial of the preliminary injunction, and therefore the preliminary injunction was not wrongfully denied.
¶ 42 GRCC also argues on cross-appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disgorge Thayn's profits from the generation of hydroelectric power. Since we have already ruled that Thayn did not breach the 1952 Agreement and 1952 Amendment in diverting water to generate hydroelectric power, there is no legal basis for the disgorgement of Thayn's profits, if any.
¶ 43 At trial, GRCC argued that Thayn trespassed on its property when he removed portions of the wing wall, extended the trash racks further onto GRCC property, cut down trees on GRCC property and placed the control mechanisms for the radial sluice gates in the pumphouse. The trial court ruled, inter alia, that Thayn did not trespass on GRCC's property when he placed the control mechanisms for the radial sluice gates in the pumphouse because the radial gates are appurtenant to the pumphouse. GRCC contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the radial sluice gates are appurtenant to the pumphouse. ¶ 44 GRCC bases its appeal on Thayn's inability to prove that the radial sluice gates were a part of the pumphouse prior to 1952, and thus, were not necessarily conveyed to Wilson when he took control of the pumphouse under the 1952 Agreement. Furthermore, GRCC argues that since the radial sluice gates aid in cleaning out the raceway, thus improving the flow of water to the parties, that the radial sluice gates are in fact appurtenant to the raceway, not to the pumphouse. ¶ 45 The trial court did not err in determining that the radial sluice gates are appurtenant to the pumphouse. While the record does not conclusively establish when the sluice gates were introduced into the facilities, it is clear that they have always been under the operation and control of either Thayn or Wilson. Indeed, GRCC acknowledges that Thayn has maintained, repaired and even replaced the radial sluice gates. GRCC has never been in control of the radial gates to conduct sluicing. Moreover, while the sluicing function is necessary for both parties to get their water from the raceway, it must be noted that the sluice gates cannot be operated without the machinery and facilities of the pumphouse, which are indisputably within Thayn's control. Finally, because both parties acknowledge that frequent sluicing has always been necessary to keep the raceway delivering water to both parties, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling that the gates must have been in existence at the time of the parties' agreement in 1952.