Opinion ID: 1179836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: silver fork's motion for summary judgment

Text: Silver Fork claims that the trial court erred by not holding as a matter of law that Salt Lake City did not have legal title to the water rights in question. We disagree. The trial court properly denied Silver Fork's motion for summary judgment because there are numerous unresolved issues of fact. For instance, the question of whether the tunnel waters would be naturally tributary to Big Cottonwood Creek absent the tunnel renders summary judgment impossible. See Utah R. Civ.P. 56(c); Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, 901 P.2d 1013, 1014 (1995) (Summary judgment is proper only when there is no issue of material fact....); United Park City Mines Co. v. Greater Park City Co., 870 P.2d 880, 885 (Utah 1993) (same). Therefore, we uphold the trial court's decision to deny Silver Fork's motion for summary judgment. The decision of the trial court is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ZIMMERMAN, C.J., STEWART, A.C.J., and HOWE and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Justice DURHAM's opinion.