Opinion ID: 170799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Utah's Second Summary Judgment Motion

Text: Utah then filed a motion for partial summary judgment against twelve landowner defendants in the Powell Slough, including the Clingers. Utah argued that the Clingers' predecessors did not obtain patents to lake-abutting parcels, but instead only obtained patents to property separated from the lake by land owned by the United States. These government lands, Utah said, were surveyed, platted, and then offered for sale in 1875, before the upland patent was issued to James Clinger in 1881. Moreover, James Clinger's patent was for a parcel above the 1856 meander line. Accordingly, the Clingers' parcel was separated from the lake by the land owned by the United States. In response, the Clingers filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. They sought a declaration that Utah had no interest in the land between the 1856 and 1874 meander lines. They dispute[d] [Utah's] claims to land lying between the 1874 meander line and the stipulated 4481 level, which has been occupied, used and possessed by the Clingers since at least 1878. Aplt's App. vol. III, at 929. They also argued that Utah lacked standing because it had admitted in its motion for partial summary judgment that it had no claim to the land between the meander lines. As to standing, the district court agreed with Utah. It reasoned that because part of the sovereign lakebed lands may have been above the lower meander line, Utah could pursue its claim that the Clingers did not have title to lake-abutting land. On the merits, the court also agreed with Utah. Because the government resurveyed the area and created the 1875 Plat including additional parcels within the 1875 lands, it is clear that the government did not intend a patent issued after 1875 using the 1856 meander line as a boundary to convey land to the water's edge. Id. at 1073. Thus, when it issued the patent to James Clinger in 1881, the United States would not have regarded the 1856 meander line as the lakeside meander line because the 1875 meander line created parcels between the 1875 meander line and the 1856 meander line. Aplt's App. vol. III, at 1068-69. As a result, only the United States' un-patented lands are subject to the State's claim to sovereign lake-bed lands as measured by the ultimate statehood use and possession test. Id. at 1073. The court rejected the Clingers' argument that an 1887 deed gave them title to lake-abutting land. That deed purported to convey to their predecessors in interest the tract of land adjoining the above described tract on the west and extending to Utah Lake. Id. at 1069. Despite that language, a grantor of real property may not convey more than he owns. Id. (citation omitted). Thus, [t]he existence of an over-reaching deed in the Clingers' chain of title cannot form the basis of a claim to unpatented federal land. Id. Accordingly, the court held that as a matter of law the Clingers do not have title to lake-abutting land because the United States owned parcels between the Clingers' patented parcel and the Lake at the time the patent was conveyed. Id. at 1072-73. The court entered a final judgment resolving the respective interests of Utah and the Clingers. The judgment stated that [t]itle is quieted in the State of Utah as against the Clinger F[am]ily Partnership to all lands located below (to the west or lakeward of) the former [1856] meander line (which is also the line separating Lots 2 and 5 of Section 29 of Township 6 South, Range 2 East, SLM) in the vicinity of Utah County Tax Parcel No. 19:034:0051. It is adjudged that Clinger possesses no right, title or interest as against the State of Utah to any portion of Lots 4 and 5, the SE1/4 NW 1 /4, or the SW 1 /4 NE 1 /4 of Section 29, Township 6 South, Range 2 East, SLM, or any acreage lying lakeward of those lands. Id. at 1106. The court dismissed all of the Clingers' causes of action against Utah with prejudice.