Opinion ID: 874217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Quieting Title to the Bagleys in All Water Rights and Fixtures Appurtenant to the Real Property?

Text: In its partial judgment, the district court quieted Bagleys' title in the real property [t]ogether with any and all water rights and fixtures appurtenant thereto. Thomasons contend this was error because the warranty deed did not mention water rights or appurtenances and the reconveyance agreement recited, The Grantees agree the deed is for bare land and does not include any manner or form of chattel. Unless they are expressly reserved in the deed or it is clearly shown that the parties intended that the grantor would reserve them, appurtenant water rights pass with the land even though they are not mentioned in the deed and the deed does not mention `appurtenances.' Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States, 144 Idaho 1, 14, 156 P.3d 502, 515 (2007). The failure of the warranty deed to mention water rights or appurtenances did not prevent water rights appurtenant to the land from being conveyed with the real property. Thomasons contend that the recitation that the warranty deed conveyed bare land means that it did not include appurtenant water rights. They do not cite any authority supporting their contention that bare land means land without water rights. The term bare land means land that does not have improvements constructed upon it. See The Senator, Inc. v. Ada County, Bd. of Equalization, 138 Idaho 566, 573, 67 P.3d 45, 52 (2003). The term has nothing to do with water rights, and the district court did not err in quieting Bagleys' title in the water rights appurtenant to the real property.