Innis v. Innis ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA1970 Innis v Innis 10-03-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA1970 </div>
<div>Mesa County District Court No. 20CV30309 </div>
<div>Honorable Valerie J. Robison, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Norma J. Innis and Richard L. Innis, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiffs-Appellees, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dain D. Innis and Lynnette Y. Innis, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendants-Appellants. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>JOHNSON</span> </div>
<div>Fox <span>and Schock, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 3, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Brett R. Lilly, <span>LLC, </span>Brett <span>R. Lilly</span>, <span>Wheat Ridge</span>, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wegener Lane <span>&amp; </span><span>Evans</span><span>, P.C., Benjamin M. Wegener, Dalen B. Porter, Grand </span>
</div>
<div>Junction, Colorado, for Defendant<span>s-Appellants </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3W66MNVQ&amp;Expires=1728853408&amp;Signature=q8YfyfwnDxfXfGSjHX2YIGnhkZA%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBUzZ4AJtQRhiZi5tW90i08tEmjreaY%2FvX9K0YdzHR2GAiEAqbt0VL6yr%2FsYUiMp6PA%2F558mlHE4H1fwFo5R68sG7qoquwUIxf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDNXOX8IYROToC4JrhiqPBbwzI%2BaA7uMRkZIZ7a4ETFxGp%2FIB2ZezoW13r3xkVYeUdHJkzoTIfBsNqZhRwjCCBQdJtajE9V7xWyL3ACtD%2FapDguQo3cr7cyArr7GktEh8zJo5f4TJc0%2FQ%2FxGNqfk5Ex36aw2i7QJVuKDmIFQip5VGQN0HsIuTg9iVtG2KpWsRQjx%2FaXD1gSh8YT58eWM%2F2OwPoV9TgpaAe7D8Kc26MOvEDJEt2nf5%2FzOGZHyMteTb5X6j7YCUmMfVqlPw5BOwvtpH68VfWXnqN9LxIGPGEAniU%2FHqhj8fXbTbVfazp2zLL18KTBerEitdKhfgB3UEcZCIg5mLFc7uRsC3bg1HFSk%2Bc8QtuS%2FWS3MdfuH4IpD%2FsZgr1gq8r1R6oLkMt2q3E1HZjbVoghKflMB7lQFKzmRfQ5QjPBp80hsZ%2FE91FLXSyn4yk610Y216phMr5UlCklN36BTYrpK9B1e%2FRpvrOA2o%2B2o%2Flf8nhC7csPWk2DZCz03zJasA5XcGAFRzlxqsrFEQ%2BAbn9GGMJaIFYK%2FoSvjvVctNS%2FYQlg%2Fiq%2FMysmxYknS7zMajUeewh8VVpG1%2BhSQDvzRiV46f0Y80eWhkaYWzIgSuhlRC25VGrny8JZ5mr%2FyY%2FYcXqTWD8NRJTx2wmpdpTqbdIgWTWZSYy%2FZzDJTjzqu3xp6Wp%2Fl90jGs6CcpcTIp9g2cPUVmhxHFtrsfv3te48y2k8djABh5Rq3S0xXE1f5Ao7uZNBXqmQiZ52m8YkyxwFkHSm0yb3LpLcJNY8AVOhJUuIaZ0KgsaYXXXCF8Y9VmgAxybbIz7kkN0yS41pOOKQkcIg6t8c7YvxKPAfcVxVMRhv1DlDsiIzbGxzSwMC1zH7gwyiBdN4L7VRowvsuwuAY6sQGOPExJ5lC3sTcGmWVzRXb9bJh3kCB3Z3DTpnPPZsNb27Bukj%2BWtyFeXvRsmNjAlJGLe3pXtWfC6VMIzB9AbJfEE4WiZ8gegyTeQFxa3y%2F%2BkBlqJZj4VaBc23aPGSxfRDy3Gi6lPCJLK5djj3o3Op6O5Ozuz7C8NZ3pDiFiCT6Fq3hWAwOVjU%2BZbZSRaTjkkmby%2B17r%2Ff0SswD48ydWYVO7e8bJ%2BTqFaKfcW0UC8GOhpX4%3D"><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendants, Dain D. Innis (Dain) and Lynette Y. Innis (Lynn),</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>appeal the district court<span>’s </span>judgment concluding that plaintiff Norma </div>
<div>J. Innis (Norma) did not convey water rights to Dain<span>’s sole </span>
</div>
<div>ownership. We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Norma and her husband, Richard L. Innis (Richard), own<span>ed</span> </span>
</div>
<div>several adjacent properties in Grand Junction: 2108 Dese<span></span>rt Hills </div>
<div>Road (2108 property), 2110 1/2 Desert Hills Road (2110 1/2 </div>
<div>property), and 2112 Desert Hills Road (2112 property). Norma and </div>
<div>Richard live at the 2108 property<span>. </span>Dawn Maiella (Dawn), Norma </div>
<div>and Richard’s daughter and Dain’s sister, lives at <span>the 2112 </span>
</div>
<div>property<span>. <span>In 1989, the three properties were placed into the Innis </span></span>
</div>
<div>Land Trust (trust)<span>. </span>At the creation of the trust, no Innis family </div>
<div>member held an interest in 2110 Desert Hills Road (2110 propert<span>y)</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>the property at issue in the action. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The 2110 property parcel includes portions of two bodies of </span>
</div>
<div>water. The parties refer to the bigger body of water as Barr<span></span>ett Pond </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Because many of the parties share the same last name, we <span></span>will </div>
<div>refer to individuals by their first names. No disrespect is intended. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf2" data-dest-detail='[2,"XYZ",69,104,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:670.680000px;bottom:877.999444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3W66MNVQ&amp;Expires=1728853408&amp;Signature=VSeKOwlyo8ITPpETqXikagnc11E%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBUzZ4AJtQRhiZi5tW90i08tEmjreaY%2FvX9K0YdzHR2GAiEAqbt0VL6yr%2FsYUiMp6PA%2F558mlHE4H1fwFo5R68sG7qoquwUIxf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDNXOX8IYROToC4JrhiqPBbwzI%2BaA7uMRkZIZ7a4ETFxGp%2FIB2ZezoW13r3xkVYeUdHJkzoTIfBsNqZhRwjCCBQdJtajE9V7xWyL3ACtD%2FapDguQo3cr7cyArr7GktEh8zJo5f4TJc0%2FQ%2FxGNqfk5Ex36aw2i7QJVuKDmIFQip5VGQN0HsIuTg9iVtG2KpWsRQjx%2FaXD1gSh8YT58eWM%2F2OwPoV9TgpaAe7D8Kc26MOvEDJEt2nf5%2FzOGZHyMteTb5X6j7YCUmMfVqlPw5BOwvtpH68VfWXnqN9LxIGPGEAniU%2FHqhj8fXbTbVfazp2zLL18KTBerEitdKhfgB3UEcZCIg5mLFc7uRsC3bg1HFSk%2Bc8QtuS%2FWS3MdfuH4IpD%2FsZgr1gq8r1R6oLkMt2q3E1HZjbVoghKflMB7lQFKzmRfQ5QjPBp80hsZ%2FE91FLXSyn4yk610Y216phMr5UlCklN36BTYrpK9B1e%2FRpvrOA2o%2B2o%2Flf8nhC7csPWk2DZCz03zJasA5XcGAFRzlxqsrFEQ%2BAbn9GGMJaIFYK%2FoSvjvVctNS%2FYQlg%2Fiq%2FMysmxYknS7zMajUeewh8VVpG1%2BhSQDvzRiV46f0Y80eWhkaYWzIgSuhlRC25VGrny8JZ5mr%2FyY%2FYcXqTWD8NRJTx2wmpdpTqbdIgWTWZSYy%2FZzDJTjzqu3xp6Wp%2Fl90jGs6CcpcTIp9g2cPUVmhxHFtrsfv3te48y2k8djABh5Rq3S0xXE1f5Ao7uZNBXqmQiZ52m8YkyxwFkHSm0yb3LpLcJNY8AVOhJUuIaZ0KgsaYXXXCF8Y9VmgAxybbIz7kkN0yS41pOOKQkcIg6t8c7YvxKPAfcVxVMRhv1DlDsiIzbGxzSwMC1zH7gwyiBdN4L7VRowvsuwuAY6sQGOPExJ5lC3sTcGmWVzRXb9bJh3kCB3Z3DTpnPPZsNb27Bukj%2BWtyFeXvRsmNjAlJGLe3pXtWfC6VMIzB9AbJfEE4WiZ8gegyTeQFxa3y%2F%2BkBlqJZj4VaBc23aPGSxfRDy3Gi6lPCJLK5djj3o3Op6O5Ozuz7C8NZ3pDiFiCT6Fq3hWAwOVjU%2BZbZSRaTjkkmby%2B17r%2Ff0SswD48ydWYVO7e8bJ%2BTqFaKfcW0UC8GOhpX4%3D"><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>(and sometimes the “lake”) and the smaller body of water <span>as</span><span> Barrett </span>
</div>
<div>Ditch.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In 1990, Dain moved to Grand Junction and lived wi<span></span>th Norma </span>
</div>
<div>and Richard. Dain eventually moved into a mobile home placed on </div>
<div>the 2110 1/2 property. Norma and Richard intended that the 2110 </div>
<div>1/2 property and the 2112 property be given to Dawn <span></span>and Dain, </div>
<div>respectively, as their shares of the trust.<span> </span>The map below, which </div>
<div>was admitted as an exhibit at trial, depicts the four properties </div>
<div>discussed in this opinion.</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> The map is an aerial view of the four properties discussed in this </div>
<div>opinion <span>taken from plaintiff’s </span>Exhibit <span>20</span><span>.</span><span> </span>The image includes the </div>
<div>properties from top to bottom: 2108, 2110, 2110 1/2, and 2112. <span></span> </div>
<div>There are yellow lines depicting the boundaries of the four </div>
<div>properties. The 2110 1/2 property does not have a number labeling<span></span> </div>
<div>it. The properties adjacent to the numbered properti<span></span>es are not a </div>
<div>part of this matter. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf3" data-dest-detail='[3,"XYZ",69,187,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:314.154444px;bottom:542.033333px;width:10.090000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMA/tJf/MMAtJfOBU8Q562GVAKqGCiAuAwG0OZhO4CmGMUzMTeYG8%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3W66MNVQ&amp;Expires=1728853408&amp;Signature=qN%2FFxNi5pht5loIfWd%2FE8AP6ilg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBUzZ4AJtQRhiZi5tW90i08tEmjreaY%2FvX9K0YdzHR2GAiEAqbt0VL6yr%2FsYUiMp6PA%2F558mlHE4H1fwFo5R68sG7qoquwUIxf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDNXOX8IYROToC4JrhiqPBbwzI%2BaA7uMRkZIZ7a4ETFxGp%2FIB2ZezoW13r3xkVYeUdHJkzoTIfBsNqZhRwjCCBQdJtajE9V7xWyL3ACtD%2FapDguQo3cr7cyArr7GktEh8zJo5f4TJc0%2FQ%2FxGNqfk5Ex36aw2i7QJVuKDmIFQip5VGQN0HsIuTg9iVtG2KpWsRQjx%2FaXD1gSh8YT58eWM%2F2OwPoV9TgpaAe7D8Kc26MOvEDJEt2nf5%2FzOGZHyMteTb5X6j7YCUmMfVqlPw5BOwvtpH68VfWXnqN9LxIGPGEAniU%2FHqhj8fXbTbVfazp2zLL18KTBerEitdKhfgB3UEcZCIg5mLFc7uRsC3bg1HFSk%2Bc8QtuS%2FWS3MdfuH4IpD%2FsZgr1gq8r1R6oLkMt2q3E1HZjbVoghKflMB7lQFKzmRfQ5QjPBp80hsZ%2FE91FLXSyn4yk610Y216phMr5UlCklN36BTYrpK9B1e%2FRpvrOA2o%2B2o%2Flf8nhC7csPWk2DZCz03zJasA5XcGAFRzlxqsrFEQ%2BAbn9GGMJaIFYK%2FoSvjvVctNS%2FYQlg%2Fiq%2FMysmxYknS7zMajUeewh8VVpG1%2BhSQDvzRiV46f0Y80eWhkaYWzIgSuhlRC25VGrny8JZ5mr%2FyY%2FYcXqTWD8NRJTx2wmpdpTqbdIgWTWZSYy%2FZzDJTjzqu3xp6Wp%2Fl90jGs6CcpcTIp9g2cPUVmhxHFtrsfv3te48y2k8djABh5Rq3S0xXE1f5Ao7uZNBXqmQiZ52m8YkyxwFkHSm0yb3LpLcJNY8AVOhJUuIaZ0KgsaYXXXCF8Y9VmgAxybbIz7kkN0yS41pOOKQkcIg6t8c7YvxKPAfcVxVMRhv1DlDsiIzbGxzSwMC1zH7gwyiBdN4L7VRowvsuwuAY6sQGOPExJ5lC3sTcGmWVzRXb9bJh3kCB3Z3DTpnPPZsNb27Bukj%2BWtyFeXvRsmNjAlJGLe3pXtWfC6VMIzB9AbJfEE4WiZ8gegyTeQFxa3y%2F%2BkBlqJZj4VaBc23aPGSxfRDy3Gi6lPCJLK5djj3o3Op6O5Ozuz7C8NZ3pDiFiCT6Fq3hWAwOVjU%2BZbZSRaTjkkmby%2B17r%2Ff0SswD48ydWYVO7e8bJ%2BTqFaKfcW0UC8GOhpX4%3D"><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>In 1993, Juel Noren (Noren) and his spouse purchased the </span>
</div>
<div>2110 property. Norma and Richard became close with <span></span>the Norens, </div>
<div>and the four discussed <span>Norma and Richard’s </span>acquisition of <span>th<span>at</span></span> </div>
<div>property to place in the trust corpus. In 2003, an agreement and </div>
<div>promissory note were drafted<span>; </span>the agreement was signed by Dain </div>
<div>and Norma and the promissory note was signed by Dain, Norma, </div>
<div>and Richard<span>. </span>Noren did not sign the agreement, so the 2110 </div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>property did not transfer at <span>th<span>at</span></span> time; Noren intended to devise the </div>
<div>2110 property to the Innises upon his death<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>In February 2005, however, Noren executed a warranty deed </span>
</div>
<div>conveying the property <span>in</span> joint tenancy <span>to</span> himself<span>, </span>Norma, and </div>
<div>Dain. <span>Following Noren’s death, a relative of Noren’s unsuccessfully </span>
</div>
<div>challenged Noren’<span>s conveyance of the 2110 property to Dain and </span>
</div>
<div>Norma. After the lawsuit, Dain and his wife, <span>Lynn</span>, began living on </div>
<div>the property. </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>In 2014, a fire caused extensive damage to the 2110 property<span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>The property was covered by a homeowner’s insurance policy. </div>
<div>Insurance payouts were made to Dain and Norma, as joint tenant<span></span>s, </div>
<div>and were received in the mail via check. The insurance p<span></span>roceeds </div>
<div>were used to build a new home. To facilitate electronic delivery of </div>
<div>the insurance proceeds, Dain added Norma to his bank account.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>The insurance proceeds did not cover the entire rebuilding </span>
</div>
<div>cost. Norma was unwilling to cosign a loan, <span>but</span> she agre<span></span>ed to sign </div>
<div>a quitclaim deed so that the 2110 property would be solely <span>in Dain’s </span>
</div>
<div>name and could be used as collateral<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>At the bench trial, Richard and Norma testified that they made </span>
</div>
<div>it<span> clear to Dain that the 2110 property was to be restored to the </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3W66MNVQ&amp;Expires=1728853408&amp;Signature=VSeKOwlyo8ITPpETqXikagnc11E%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBUzZ4AJtQRhiZi5tW90i08tEmjreaY%2FvX9K0YdzHR2GAiEAqbt0VL6yr%2FsYUiMp6PA%2F558mlHE4H1fwFo5R68sG7qoquwUIxf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDNXOX8IYROToC4JrhiqPBbwzI%2BaA7uMRkZIZ7a4ETFxGp%2FIB2ZezoW13r3xkVYeUdHJkzoTIfBsNqZhRwjCCBQdJtajE9V7xWyL3ACtD%2FapDguQo3cr7cyArr7GktEh8zJo5f4TJc0%2FQ%2FxGNqfk5Ex36aw2i7QJVuKDmIFQip5VGQN0HsIuTg9iVtG2KpWsRQjx%2FaXD1gSh8YT58eWM%2F2OwPoV9TgpaAe7D8Kc26MOvEDJEt2nf5%2FzOGZHyMteTb5X6j7YCUmMfVqlPw5BOwvtpH68VfWXnqN9LxIGPGEAniU%2FHqhj8fXbTbVfazp2zLL18KTBerEitdKhfgB3UEcZCIg5mLFc7uRsC3bg1HFSk%2Bc8QtuS%2FWS3MdfuH4IpD%2FsZgr1gq8r1R6oLkMt2q3E1HZjbVoghKflMB7lQFKzmRfQ5QjPBp80hsZ%2FE91FLXSyn4yk610Y216phMr5UlCklN36BTYrpK9B1e%2FRpvrOA2o%2B2o%2Flf8nhC7csPWk2DZCz03zJasA5XcGAFRzlxqsrFEQ%2BAbn9GGMJaIFYK%2FoSvjvVctNS%2FYQlg%2Fiq%2FMysmxYknS7zMajUeewh8VVpG1%2BhSQDvzRiV46f0Y80eWhkaYWzIgSuhlRC25VGrny8JZ5mr%2FyY%2FYcXqTWD8NRJTx2wmpdpTqbdIgWTWZSYy%2FZzDJTjzqu3xp6Wp%2Fl90jGs6CcpcTIp9g2cPUVmhxHFtrsfv3te48y2k8djABh5Rq3S0xXE1f5Ao7uZNBXqmQiZ52m8YkyxwFkHSm0yb3LpLcJNY8AVOhJUuIaZ0KgsaYXXXCF8Y9VmgAxybbIz7kkN0yS41pOOKQkcIg6t8c7YvxKPAfcVxVMRhv1DlDsiIzbGxzSwMC1zH7gwyiBdN4L7VRowvsuwuAY6sQGOPExJ5lC3sTcGmWVzRXb9bJh3kCB3Z3DTpnPPZsNb27Bukj%2BWtyFeXvRsmNjAlJGLe3pXtWfC6VMIzB9AbJfEE4WiZ8gegyTeQFxa3y%2F%2BkBlqJZj4VaBc23aPGSxfRDy3Gi6lPCJLK5djj3o3Op6O5Ozuz7C8NZ3pDiFiCT6Fq3hWAwOVjU%2BZbZSRaTjkkmby%2B17r%2Ff0SswD48ydWYVO7e8bJ%2BTqFaKfcW0UC8GOhpX4%3D"><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>joint tenancy with Norma once he completed the project so t<span></span>hat the </div>
<div>property could be added to the trust<span>. </span>Dain testified, though, that it </div>
<div>was always his intent to obtain a mortgage with Lynn and never </div>
<div>return the property to the joint tenancy with Norma. </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Norma signed the quitclaim deed on February 18, 2016. </span>
</div>
<div>Norma did not receive consideration for this conveyance<span>. </span>On </div>
<div>February 23, 2016, Dain signed the quitclaim deed, so the property </div>
<div>was solely in his name. On th<span>at</span> same day, Dain conveyed the </div>
<div>property as a joint tenancy with Lynn. On March 4, 2016, Dain </div>
<div>and Lynn acquired a mortgage on the 2110 property.</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Over the next several years after the conveyance<span>, </span><span>Dain</span><span>’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>relationship with his parents significantly deteriorated. </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Norma eventually filed a complaint to restore her as a joint </span>
</div>
<div>tenant <span>of</span>, and to remove Lynn from the title <span>on</span>, t<span></span>he 2110 property. </div>
<div>Norma asserted six claims against Dain and Lynn, including unj<span></span>ust </div>
<div>enrichment<span>, <span>promissory estoppel</span>, <span>breach of contract</span>, <span>constructive </span></span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> Wells Fargo holds the note <span>for Dain and Lynn’s mortgage</span> with t<span></span>he </div>
<div>2110 property as collateral. Wells Fargo was origina<span></span>lly named in </div>
<div>the complaint. All parties entered into a stipulation acknowle<span></span>dging </div>
<div>that Wells Fargo has a first position priority lien encumbered on <span></span>the </div>
<div>property and that, <span>regardless of the quiet title action, Wells Fargo’<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>first position priority lien remains in effect. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf6" data-dest-detail='[6,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:552.460000px;bottom:500.032778px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>trust<span>, <span>fraudulent inducement, and quiet title as to water rights</span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Dain and Lynn counterclaimed, naming Richard as a third-party </div>
<div>defendant and asserting four claims including quiet tit<span>le</span>, </div>
<div>declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and conversion. At som<span></span>e </div>
<div>point after Norma<span>’s</span> complaint was filed, Dain broke int<span></span>o his </div>
<div>parents’<span> home and stole <span>most of Norma’s records</span> relating to the </span>
</div>
<div>2110 property. The records were later provided to Norma and </div>
<div>Richard as part of the discovery process. </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>After a four-day bench trial, the district court issued a detaile<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>order on November 22, 2022 (November 2022 order).<span> </span>The district </div>
<div>court found that the deed conveying the 2110 property to Dain was </div>
<div>a valid transfer, <span>so</span> <span>Norma’s </span>claims for breach of contract, </div>
<div>constructive trust, promissory estoppel, and fraudulent inducement </div>
<div>failed. The court, however, found that Dain was unjustly enriched </div>
<div>by keeping the property solely in his name because Norma signe<span></span>d </div>
<div>the quitclaim deed for no consideration. The court entered a </div>
<div>judgment in favor of Norma for $240,390 for her share of the </div>
<div>property as a former joint tenant. </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>As pertinent to this appeal, the district court also found that </span>
</div>
<div>the water rights to the 2110 property were not transferred by <span></span>the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>2016 quitclaim deed signed by Norma and that such rights </div>
<div>remained held in joint tenancy by Dain and Norma. </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>The court stated that the warranty deed from Noren conveying </span>
</div>
<div>the property to Dain and Norma included language that conveyed </div>
<div>“all water, water rights, ditches and ditch rights <span>appurtenant </span>
</div>
<div>thereto<span>,” but the <span>2016 quitclaim deed from Norma to Dain did not </span></span>
</div>
<div>include this language. <span>The court determined that Norma’s </span>
</div>
<div>conveyance was intended to be a short-term transfer so Dain c<span></span>ould </div>
<div>obtain a loan<span>, </span>that the parties did not discuss water rights when the </div>
<div>conveyance occurred, and that there was insufficient evidence </div>
<div>presented <span>of</span> <span>an</span>y intent to convey water rights<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>On appeal, Dain and Lynn contend that the district court<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>erred <span>by</span> (1) holding that water rights related to the 2110 propert<span></span>y </div>
<div>did not transfer solely to Dain on February 23, 2016; (2) failing t<span></span>o </div>
<div>determine that the water rights were incidental and necessary t<span></span>o </div>
<div>the 2110 property; and (3) infringing <span>on Lynn’s rights</span> by quieting </div>
<div>title of the water rights to Dain and Norma as joint tenants. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Jurisdiction </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>In<span>i<span>ti</span><span>ally, Dain and Lynn filed a notice of appeal seeking review </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>of the district court<span>’</span>s November 2022 order. Norma and Richard </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>filed a cross-appeal. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed </div>
<div>by this court without prejudice because we lacked a final </div>
<div>appealable order. </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>In February 2023<span>, </span>Norma and Richard then filed motions in </span>
</div>
<div>the district court requesting that the court issue (1) a decree </div>
<div>quieting title to all water rights related to the 2110 property <span></span>to Dain </div>
<div>and Norma as joint tenants; (2) an order on their bill <span></span>of costs; and </div>
<div>(3) an order determining prejudgment interest owed to Norm<span></span>a for </div>
<div>her judgment of $240,390 entered as part of the November <span></span>22 </div>
<div>order<span>. <span>After briefing on the motions, the district court issued on </span></span>
</div>
<div>September 27, 2023: (1) a decree quieting title t<span></span>o the water rights </div>
<div>related to the 2110 property; (2) an order awarding Norma and </div>
<div>Richard their costs; and (3) an order awarding Norma $129,665.<span></span>71 </div>
<div>in prejudgment interest (September 2023 orders).<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Norma and Richard contend that we lack jurisdiction to review </span>
</div>
<div>the court’s November 2022 order because<span> </span>Dain and Lynn’s <span>(1) </span>
</div>
<div>second notice of appeal references only the September 2023 orders </div>
<div>and (2) second appeal was untimely, as it was filed nearly a year </div>
<div>after the November 2022 order. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>We must independently determine our jurisdiction over an </span>
</div>
<div>appeal. <span>People v. S.X.G.</span>, 2012 CO 5, ¶ 9.<span> </span>Subject to exceptions </div>
<div>inapplicable here, an appeal to this court may be taken only from <span></span>a </div>
<div>final judgment. § 13-4-102(1), C.R.S. 2024<span>; </span><span>see also</span> C.A.R. 1(a)(1)<span>; </span>
</div>
<div>People v. G.S.<span>, 2018 CO 31, ¶ 37.<span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>To be a final appealable order, a judgment or order must </span>
</div>
<div>address both liability and damages. <span>Chavez v. Chavez</span>, 2020 COA </div>
<div>70, ¶ 28. Because prejudgment interest is a component <span></span>of a </div>
<div>damages award, <span>“</span>a judgment awarding prejudgment interest is </div>
<div>not final until the amount of such interest is reduced to a su<span></span>m </div>
<div>certain.”<span> <span>Stone Grp. Holdings LLC v. Ellison<span>, 2024 COA 10, ¶ 23 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>(quoting <span>Grand Cnty. Custom Homebuilding, LLC v. Bell</span>, 148 P.3d </div>
<div>398, 401 (Colo. App. 2006)). </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>If, however, prejudgment interest can be calculated on the face </span>
</div>
<div>of the judgment, calculation of the interest is a “ministerial” t<span></span>ask, </div>
<div>rendering the judgment final for purposes of appeal. <span>Id. </span>at ¶¶ 25-</div>
<div>26.<span> But for prejudgment interest to be reduced <span></span>to a sum certain, </span>
</div>
<div>the order must include <span>“</span>(1) the amount of the judgment;<span></span> (2) the </div>
<div>interest rate; and (3) the date on which accrual of prejudgment </div>
<div>interest begins<span>.”</span> <span>Id.</span> at ¶ <span>26.</span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>At the time Dain and Lynn filed their first notice of appeal, the </span>
</div>
<div>November 2022 order was not final because, although it set forth </div>
<div>the judgment amount of $240,390, it did not identify <span></span>the interest </div>
<div>rate or the date prejudgment interest would begin to accrue<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Therefore, the November <span>20</span>22 order was not final under the test <span></span>in </div>
<div>Stone Group Holdings<span>, which is why this court dismissed the f<span></span>irst </span>
</div>
<div>appeal <span>for</span> lack of a final appealable order<span>; the court’s judgment</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>however, became final with the September 2023 order that reduced </div>
<div>the prejudgment interest award to a sum certain; therefore, the </div>
<div>second notice of appeal was timely filed<span>. </span>And because the district </div>
<div>court incorporated its November 22 order into the Septem<span></span>ber 23 </div>
<div>decree, our review includes the November 2022 and Septem<span></span>ber </div>
<div>2023 orders.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> <span>“When a court enters a judgment following a bench trial, t<span></span>hat </span></span>
</div>
<div>judgment presents a mixed question of law and fact.” <span>Stat<span></span>e Farm </span>
</div>
<div>Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson<span>, 2017 CO 68, ¶ 12.<span> </span>Under the mixed </span>
</div>
<div>standard, “<span>[f]indings of fact are generally reviewed under a clea<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>error or abuse of discretion standard, whereas concl<span></span>usions of law </div>
<div>are generally reviewed under a de novo standard.” <span>E-470 Pub. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>Highway Auth. v. 455 Co.<span>, 3 P.3d 18, 22 (Colo. 2000). We may </span>
</div>
<div>consider the “ultimate conclusion as one of fact for purposes <span></span>of </div>
<div>review and apply the clear error standard.” <span>Id. <span>In this case, the </span></span>
</div>
<div>district court made factual findings intertwined with conclusions of<span></span> </div>
<div>law based on the testimony of the parties. </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Analysis </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>Dain and Lynn raise three arguments to support that Norma </span>
</div>
<div>transferred the water rights associated with the 2110 p<span></span>roperty to </div>
<div>Dain’s<span> sole ownership: (1) the express terms of the quitclaim <span></span>deed </span>
</div>
<div>transferred the water rights; (2) the water rights are incident<span></span>al and </div>
<div>necessary to the 2110 property; and (3) the <span>court’s September 2<span></span>023 </span>
</div>
<div>orders <span>infringe on Lynn’s rights. We reject all three argument<span></span>s.<span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>1.<span> <span> </span>Express Terms </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>Dain and Lynn contend that the water rights were transferred </span>
</div>
<div>to Dain’s sole ownership based on the 2016 quitclaim deed’<span></span>s<span> </span>
</div>
<div>express language that conveyed the property and all its </div>
<div>appurtenant rights. Dain and Lynn refer to the following clause<span>: </span> </div>
<div>TO HAVE AND TO HOLD same unto Grantees, </div>
<div>together with all and singular the </div>
<div>appurtenances and privileges thereunto </div>
<div>belonging or in anywise thereunto </div>
<div>appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div>12 </div>
<div>interest and claim whatsoever, of the Grantor<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>either in law or equity, to the only proper use, </div>
<div>benefit and behoof of the grantees<span>, </span>their heirs </div>
<div>and assigns forever. </div>
<div>Thus, Dain and Lynn assert, <span>Norma and Dain’s intent as co</span>-</div>
<div>grantors was to convey <span>all “right, title, interest, and claim </span>
</div>
<div>whatsoever” to the 2110 property to the “only proper use” and </div>
<div>benefit of Dain, which included the water rights<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>In Colorado, water rights are separate from the interests in </span>
</div>
<div>land. <span>See Bd. of Cnty. Comm<span>’</span>rs v. Park Cnty. Sportsmen<span>’</span>s Ranch, </span>
</div>
<div>LLP<span>, 45 P.3d 693, 707 (Colo. 2002) (“<span>[N]either surface water, <span></span>nor </span></span>
</div>
<div>ground water, nor the use rights thereto, nor the water-bearing </div>
<div>capacity of natural formations belong to a landowner as a stic<span></span>k in </div>
<div>the property rights bundle.<span>”); <span>see also</span></span> <span>Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ja<span></span>nitell </span>
</div>
<div>Farms, Inc.<span>, 609 P.2d 1116, 1117 (Colo. App. 1980) (<span></span>“<span>[A] water right </span></span>
</div>
<div>is a property right separate and apart from the land on which it<span></span> is </div>
<div>used . . . . The land for which it was appropriated or on wh<span></span>ich it </div>
<div>has been used may be conveyed or held without the water, and the </div>
<div>water may be conveyed or held without the land.” (quoting <span>Nielson </span>
</div>
<div>v. Newmyer<span>, 228 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. 1951))).<span> </span><span>Thus, “</span>[o]nce </span>
</div>
<div>acquired, water rights may be transferred separately from t<span></span>he </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>property itself.” <span>WRWC, LLC v. City of Arvada<span>, 107 P.3d 1002,<span></span> 1005 </span></span>
</div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2004); <span>see also Humphrey v. Sw. Dev. Co.</span>, 734 P.2d 637, </div>
<div>640 (Colo. 1987). </div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>To <span>convey water rights, “the same formalities shall be obse<span></span>rved </span></span>
</div>
<div>and complied with as in the conveyance of real estate.” §<span> <span>38</span><span>-<span>30<span></span><span>-</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>102(2), C.R.S. 2024. It has long been the law in Colorado t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>water rights are determined by the express terms of t<span></span>he deed that </div>
<div>purportedly transfers the rights. <span>Wanamaker Ditch Co. v. Cra<span></span>ne<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>288 P.2d 339, 343 (Colo. 1955). </div>
<div>¶ 29<span> </span><span>The 2005 warranty deed conveying the 2110 property in joint </span>
</div>
<div>tenancy to Noren, Dain, and Norma had language that the </div>
<div>conveyance included “all water, water rights, ditches and ditch </div>
<div>rights appurtenant thereto.” <span>But</span><span> the 2016 quitclaim dee<span></span>d that </span>
</div>
<div>conveyed the property from a joint tenancy between Norma an<span></span>d </div>
<div>Dain to Dain’s sole possession did not include <span>that same language. </span>
</div>
<div>See Nielson<span>, 228 P.2d <span>at 458 (“The land for which it was </span></span>
</div>
<div>appropriated or on which it has been used may be conveyed <span></span>or held </div>
<div>without the water, and the water may be conveyed or held wit<span></span>hout </div>
<div>the land, or any part of the land may be conveyed together with any </div>
<div>part of the water right and the remainder be retained.”) (<span></span>citation </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>omitted).<span> <span>Therefore, given the title history for the 2110 pro<span></span>perty, </span></span>
</div>
<div>the district court did not err when it look<span>ed</span> at the prior conveyanc<span></span>e </div>
<div>documents and concluded that, if water rights were intende<span></span>d to be </div>
<div>transferred, the 2016 quitclaim deed could have expressly said so.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>In other words, the 2005 warranty deed executed by Noren included </div>
<div>the water rights, and therefore, the parties knew how to convey </div>
<div>those rights but chose not to do so in the 2016 quitcl<span></span>aim deed.<span> </span><span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Fox v. 1-10, Ltd.<span>, 936 P.2d 580, <span>58</span><span>2-<span>83</span></span> (Colo. App. 1998) (as part <span></span>of </span>
</div>
<div>a contract interpretation analysis, finding that parties knew how to </div>
<div>exempt certain provisions of a partnership agreement’s <span></span>amendment </div>
<div>procedures, while they intentionally “chose not to” exempt <span></span>others)<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>aff’d<span>, 957 P.2d 1018 (Colo. 1998).<span> </span>Nonetheless, Dain contends, and </span>
</div>
<div>we agree, that in certain circumstances<span>, t</span>ransfer of the property </div>
<div>and the appurtenances can include transfer of the water rights. </div>
<div>Whether water rights are appurtenant to the land, howev<span></span>er, “is </div>
<div>generally a question of fact, as is also whether on a sale or t<span></span>ransfer </div>
<div>of the land, the water right passes as an appurtenance.” <span></span> <span>Travelers </span>
</div>
<div>Ins. Co.<span>, 609 P.2d at 1118 (citing </span>Denver Joint Stock La<span></span>nd Bank v. </div>
<div>Markham<span>, 107 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1940)). “Where, in conveyanc<span></span>e of </span>
</div>
<div>land a part only of the appurtenant water right is described <span></span>and </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div><div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>specified as being conveyed therewith, such specific designation </div>
<div>destroys any presumption of intention to convey the remainder.” </div>
<div>Nielson<span>, 228 P.2d at 458-<span>59</span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 30<span> </span><span>In considering the testimony of all parties, the district court </span>
</div>
<div>determined that the transfer was intended to be temporary so Dain </div>
<div>could obtain a loan and that the parties did not discuss the transfer </div>
<div>of water rights. Because of the short-term nature of the </div>
<div>transaction, it was reasonable to infer that the parties had not </div>
<div>discussed the water rights<span>. </span>This inference is supported <span>by Dain’s </span>
</div>
<div>affidavit stating that, at the time of the conveyance, <span>he “</span>did not </div>
<div>understand that ownership of water rights could be separate fr<span></span>om </div>
<div>ownership of the <span>land.” </span> </div>
<div>¶ 31<span> </span><span>Nonetheless, Dain contends that he testified at trial that his </span>
</div>
<div>intent was to transfer the entirety of the 2110 property interest to </div>
<div>his sole possession and then put Lynn’s name on the t<span></span>itle. He says </div>
<div>this makes sense because he <span>wa</span>s estranged from his parents and </div>
<div>because his sister has her own property from the trust so he sh<span></span>ould </div>
<div>have one as well. But Dain and Lynn did not certify transcripts </div>
<div>from the bench trial on appeal, and therefore, we must presume </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>that the court<span>’</span><span>s </span>judgment was correct. <span>See People v. Duran</span>, 2015 </div>
<div>COA 141, ¶ 21. </div>
<div>¶ 32<span> </span><span>And regardless, the November 2022 order made credibility </span>
</div>
<div>determinations and weighed the conflicting evidence and testimony </div>
<div>about the parties’ intent surrounding the <span>2016 quitclaim deed. <span></span>The </span>
</div>
<div>court reasoned that “<span>it is more likely than not that Dain was </span>
</div>
<div>intentionally vague about any promises or agreements he was </div>
<div>making so that his mother would take her name off t<span></span>he Property </div>
<div>and give the Property solely to him<span>.” Credibility determinations are </span>
</div>
<div>within the sole province of the fact finder, and we may not reweigh </div>
<div>the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the district </div>
<div>court. <span>See</span> <span>Target Corp. v. Prestige Maint. USA, Ltd.</span>, 2013 COA <span></span>12, </div>
<div>¶ <span>24</span><span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 33<span> </span><span>Dain and Lynn also contend that the water rights for the </span>
</div>
<div>Barrett Ditch and Barrett Pond were severed in 1986, which would </div>
<div>mean that he own<span>ed</span> the water rights to Barrett Pond. Norma an<span></span>d </div>
<div>Richard claim this argument is unpreserved. But even if Dain and </div>
<div>Lynn<span> made this argument in the summary judgment briefing, we do </span>
</div>
<div>not know how or if the argument was raised at trial because we lack </div>
<div>a transcript. <span>See</span><span> </span><span>Duran</span>, ¶ 21. <span> </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3W66MNVQ&amp;Expires=1728853408&amp;Signature=VSeKOwlyo8ITPpETqXikagnc11E%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGwaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBUzZ4AJtQRhiZi5tW90i08tEmjreaY%2FvX9K0YdzHR2GAiEAqbt0VL6yr%2FsYUiMp6PA%2F558mlHE4H1fwFo5R68sG7qoquwUIxf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDNXOX8IYROToC4JrhiqPBbwzI%2BaA7uMRkZIZ7a4ETFxGp%2FIB2ZezoW13r3xkVYeUdHJkzoTIfBsNqZhRwjCCBQdJtajE9V7xWyL3ACtD%2FapDguQo3cr7cyArr7GktEh8zJo5f4TJc0%2FQ%2FxGNqfk5Ex36aw2i7QJVuKDmIFQip5VGQN0HsIuTg9iVtG2KpWsRQjx%2FaXD1gSh8YT58eWM%2F2OwPoV9TgpaAe7D8Kc26MOvEDJEt2nf5%2FzOGZHyMteTb5X6j7YCUmMfVqlPw5BOwvtpH68VfWXnqN9LxIGPGEAniU%2FHqhj8fXbTbVfazp2zLL18KTBerEitdKhfgB3UEcZCIg5mLFc7uRsC3bg1HFSk%2Bc8QtuS%2FWS3MdfuH4IpD%2FsZgr1gq8r1R6oLkMt2q3E1HZjbVoghKflMB7lQFKzmRfQ5QjPBp80hsZ%2FE91FLXSyn4yk610Y216phMr5UlCklN36BTYrpK9B1e%2FRpvrOA2o%2B2o%2Flf8nhC7csPWk2DZCz03zJasA5XcGAFRzlxqsrFEQ%2BAbn9GGMJaIFYK%2FoSvjvVctNS%2FYQlg%2Fiq%2FMysmxYknS7zMajUeewh8VVpG1%2BhSQDvzRiV46f0Y80eWhkaYWzIgSuhlRC25VGrny8JZ5mr%2FyY%2FYcXqTWD8NRJTx2wmpdpTqbdIgWTWZSYy%2FZzDJTjzqu3xp6Wp%2Fl90jGs6CcpcTIp9g2cPUVmhxHFtrsfv3te48y2k8djABh5Rq3S0xXE1f5Ao7uZNBXqmQiZ52m8YkyxwFkHSm0yb3LpLcJNY8AVOhJUuIaZ0KgsaYXXXCF8Y9VmgAxybbIz7kkN0yS41pOOKQkcIg6t8c7YvxKPAfcVxVMRhv1DlDsiIzbGxzSwMC1zH7gwyiBdN4L7VRowvsuwuAY6sQGOPExJ5lC3sTcGmWVzRXb9bJh3kCB3Z3DTpnPPZsNb27Bukj%2BWtyFeXvRsmNjAlJGLe3pXtWfC6VMIzB9AbJfEE4WiZ8gegyTeQFxa3y%2F%2BkBlqJZj4VaBc23aPGSxfRDy3Gi6lPCJLK5djj3o3Op6O5Ozuz7C8NZ3pDiFiCT6Fq3hWAwOVjU%2BZbZSRaTjkkmby%2B17r%2Ff0SswD48ydWYVO7e8bJ%2BTqFaKfcW0UC8GOhpX4%3D"><div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>¶ 34<span> </span><span>Finally, Dain and Lynn contend that because the title history </span>
</div>
<div>transferring the water rights to his parents for the 210<span></span>8 property </div>
<div>also contain<span>ed</span> <span>a </span>general reference to th<span>at land’s</span> appurtenant rights<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>th<span>e <span>general language in the 2016 quitclaim deed likewise </span></span>
</div>
<div>transferred the water rights associated with the 2110 property.<span></span> As </div>
<div>part of this argument, he and Lynn ask us to take judicial notic<span></span>e of </div>
<div>three deeds, attached to their opening brief, relating to the <span></span>title </div>
<div>histories for the 2108 and 2110 properties. </div>
<div>¶ 35<span> </span><span>These arguments were not raised below, and the documents </span>
</div>
<div>were not presented to the district court for its consideration. </div>
<div>Consequently, we decline to take judicial notice of documents, and </div>
<div>we will not review this argument further<span>. </span><span>See Laleh v. Johnson</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>2016 COA 4, ¶ 8, <span>aff<span>’</span><span>d on other grounds</span></span>, 2017 CO 93.</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> Other arguments Dain and Lynn assert on appeal but did not </div>
<div>raise below include the following: (1) Dain and Lynn own <span></span>the </div>
<div>“improvements” to <span>the Barrett Pond and Barrett Ditch locate<span></span>d on </span>
</div>
<div>the 2110 property based on the improvements clause in t<span></span>he 2016 </div>
<div>quitclaim deed, and (2<span>) </span>the title history for the 2110 property did </div>
<div>not always provide a detailed description of the water right<span></span>s being </div>
<div>transferred<span>. <span>Consequently, we will not address them. <span>See Laleh v. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>Johnson<span>, 2016 COA 4, ¶ 8, <span>aff'd on other grounds</span>, 2017 CO 93. </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf12" data-dest-detail='[18,"XYZ",69,203,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:559.219444px;bottom:374.005556px;width:10.080000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf13" data-page-no="13">
<div><div>
<div>18 </div>
<div>2.<span> <span> </span>Incidental and Necessary </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 36<span> </span><span>Dain and Lynn next contend that the water rights must have </span>
</div>
<div>been transferred to his sole ownership because those rights are </div>
<div>incidental and necessary to the 2110 property. They continue that </div>
<div>the court made no findings about the incidental and beneficial <span></span>use </div>
<div>of the water rights<span>, </span>necessitating that we remand to the district </div>
<div>court.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 37<span> </span><span>For support <span>of</span> Dain and Lynn<span>’s </span>incidental and necessary </span>
</div>
<div>arguments, they rely <span>on</span> a number of cases, includin<span></span>g <span>Kinoshita v. </span>
</div>
<div>N. Denver Bank<span>, 508 P.2d 1264 (Colo. 1973); </span>James v. Barker<span>, 64 </span>
</div>
<div>P.2d 598 (Colo. 1937); <span>Hastings &amp; Heyden Realty Co. v. Gest</span>, 201 P. </div>
<div>37 (Colo. 1921); <span>Shigo, LLC v. Hocker</span><span>, </span>2014 COA 16. </div>
<div>¶ 38<span> </span><span>These cases generally hold that water rights may be </span>
</div>
<div>appurtenant to the land (incidental) and<span>, </span>thus, transferr<span>ed</span> absent </div>
<div>any specific language in the deed </div>
<div>•<span> <span>when a court determin<span>es</span> <span>the intent of the parties “</span>from all the </span></span>
</div>
<div>circumstances of the case, including the fact as to the use of </div>
<div>the water and whether it is necessary and essential to the </div>
<div>beneficial use and enjoyment of the land<span>,” <span>Kinoshita</span></span>, 508 P.2<span></span>d </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf14" data-page-no="14">
<div><div>
<div>19 </div>
<div>at 1267 (quoting <span>Hastings &amp; Heyden Realty Co.</span>, 201 P. at 39)<span>; </span>
</div>
<div>see also Shigo, LLC<span>, <span>¶ <span>13</span>; <span>or</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>“if the presumptions arising from the circumstances of <span></span>the </span></span>
</div>
<div>transaction make it appear that it was the intention of the </div>
<div>grantor that [the rights] should so pass<span>,”</span> <span>James</span>, 64 P.2d at </div>
<div>600; <span>see also</span> <span>Hastings</span>, 201 P. at <span>39</span>. </div>
<div>Given the case law, the district court primarily focused on </div>
<div>Norma’s intent<span>, as she was the grantor of the 2016 quitclaim deed<span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>We have previously discussed that Norma considered the </div>
<div>transaction to be a short-term deal and that the water rights were </div>
<div>never discussed.<span> </span>Again, without the benefit of a transcript, we </div>
<div>must presume the record supports the <span>district court’s findings. <span>See </span></span>
</div>
<div>Duran<span>, <span>¶ <span>21</span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 39<span> </span><span>As to whether the water rights are necessary for the beneficial </span>
</div>
<div>use and enjoyment of the 2110 property<span>, </span>Dain stated in his affidavit </div>
<div>that he used Barrett Pond to water his lawn, bushes, and shr<span></span>ubs </div>
<div>via an automatic sprinkler and that this is necessary because of <span></span>the </div>
<div>arid climate where the 2110 property is located<span>. </span>Dain also stated </div>
<div>that he, Lynn, and their kids used Barrett Pond for recreation an<span></span>d </div>
<div>swimming.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf15" data-page-no="15">
<div><div>
<div>20 </div>
<div>¶ 40<span> </span><span>But<span> the cases they cite all involve agricultural or irrigation </span></span>
</div>
<div>uses of the land, not recreational uses<span>. </span><span>See Kinoshita</span>, 508 P.2d at </div>
<div>1265 (the owner conveyed farmland); <span>Shigo, LLC</span>, ¶¶ 3-6 (same); </div>
<div>Hastings<span>, 201 P. at 40 (“It is also well established that <span></span>without </span>
</div>
<div>water the land would be practically worthless for agricultu<span></span>ral </div>
<div>purposes, and would have a value of only one-tenth the amount </div>
<div>paid to obtain its release. This fact is important as indicating<span></span> the </div>
<div>int<span>ention to convey the water with the land . . . .”); <span>James</span><span>, 64 P.2d </span></span>
</div>
<div>at 600 (water was used for land irrigation). And we cannot find, <span></span>nor </div>
<div>have the parties cited, authority holding that water rights used for </div>
<div>landscaping and recreation are necessary and incidental </div>
<div>appurtenances to the land so that, absent specific mention of t<span></span>he </div>
<div>water rights in a deed, they nonetheless transfer with <span></span>the land. </div>
<div>¶ 41<span> <span>And Dain and Lynn’s argument that Lynn <span>and Norma cannot </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>use the well is not at issue in this case. As Dain and Lynn pointe<span></span>d </div>
<div>out, adjudication of water usage are issues exclusively <span></span>determined </div>
<div>by a water court. Here, we are dealing with ownership of the <span></span>water </div>
<div>rights. <span>See Allen v. State</span>, 2019 CO 6, ¶ 1<span>. </span>And because the well is </div>
<div>for domestic use only, Dain and Lynn could not use t<span></span>he well for </div>
<div>agricultural purposes. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf16" data-page-no="16">
<div><div>
<div>21 </div>
<div>¶ 42<span> </span><span>Accordingly, we conclude that the water rights are not </span>
</div>
<div>incidental and necessary to Dain and Lynn’s beneficial use and </div>
<div>enjoyment of the land. </div>
<div>3.<span> <span>Infringement of Rights </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 43<span> <span>Dain and Lynn’s final contention is that the water decree </span></span>
</div>
<div>infringes on <span>Lynn’s rights</span> <span>as</span> a joint owner of the 2110 prope<span></span>rty. </div>
<div>Norma and Richard contend that this argument was not made </div>
<div>below and is therefore unpreserved. <span>Even assuming Lynn’s “use” <span></span>of </span>
</div>
<div>the water in Barrett Pond and Barrett Ditch <span>is</span> <span>a “right”</span> attached to </div>
<div>her property ownership, we cannot find <span>an</span>y argument to that<span></span> effect </div>
<div>made below, and again, the transcripts were not provided for o<span></span>ur </div>
<div>review. Therefore, we conclude that this argument was not raised </div>
<div>below, and we will not address <span>it</span> further<span>. </span><span>See Laleh</span><span>,</span><span> </span>¶ 8. </div>
<div>V.<span> <span>Conclusion </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 44<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SCHOCK concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>