Opinion ID: 2543803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: trial court's judgment awarding an amount of water versus a percentage of flow

Text: ¶ 41 The Warrs argue that the trial court's judgment requiring them to convey to plaintiffs by quitclaim deed sufficient water from their interest in the Rose Spring to irrigate each of their five-acre lots, i.e., 0.079 cfs for each lot is unreasonable because they cannot guarantee they will be able to provide this amount of water each season. Plaintiffs counter that the judgment was not excessive. Plaintiffs assert that based on the testimony offered at trial, the amount ordered will reasonably irrigate five acres, as the plaintiffs were promised when they purchased their respective lots, sufficient water to irrigate their land. ¶ 42 Specific performance is a remedy of equity which is addressed to the sense of justice and good conscience of the court, and accordingly, considerable latitude of discretion is allowed in [the trial court's] determination as to whether it shall be granted and what judgment should be entered .... Morris v. Sykes, 624 P.2d 681, 684 (Utah 1981); see also LHIW, Inc. v. DeLorean, 753 P.2d 961, 963 (Utah 1988). Specific performance as a remedy will stand and will not be upset on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Morris, 624 P.2d at 684. ¶ 43 Plaintiffs request specific performance; their complaint requests an Order of specific performance requiring the Warrs to convey to plaintiffs their respective shares (7.5 cfs.) of the Subject Water and to complete the delivery system from Rose Spring to the Rocky Top Subdivision. In awarding to plaintiffs sufficient water ... to irrigate each of their five-acre lots, i.e., 0.079 cfs for each lot, the trial court considered what it determined the Warrs' contracted to provide plaintiffs, testimony from a professional engineer regarding how much water would be needed to irrigate five acres, and deeds the Warrs had prepared to convey the water rights. The trial court found that [t]he Plaintiffs established ... that the Warrs intended, marketed, and sold the Plaintiffs' lots in the Rocky Top Subdivision with irrigation water sufficient to irrigate five acres, and that the irrigation water rights were to be included in the price of the lots. Mr. Vern Loveless, a professional engineer, testified that .079 cfs of water would irrigate four and three-quarters acres; the remaining quarter acre would be maintained with non-irrigation water. Based on this testimony, the trial court determined that [t]he amount of water necessary to irrigate five acres is .079 cfs, or twenty acre feet. Finally, the deeds prepared by the Warrs indicate that they intended to convey seven and nine tenths percent (7.9%) of Change Application No. a-12993 which represents 0.0079 cfs from Rose Spring AKA Bryan Springs. (Emphasis added). Even though awarding a percentage of flow may seem sensible, given this information weighed by the trial court, we cannot say that the trial judge exceeded the permitted scope of discretion in granting specific performance and in entering the judgment it did.