Welu v. Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc.

386 P.3d 937 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2005, Steve Held and Ginger Held (Helds), together with David Platt and Diane Case (Platts), purchased an approximately 6,000-acre ranch. In 2008, the parties agreed to divide the Ranch into three 2,000-acre parcels. Under the 2009 agreement, P purchased one of the three 2,000-acre parcels, while the Helds retained a 2,000-acre parcel, and the remaining 2,000-acre parcel was transferred to the Platts. The parties obtained certain rights relating to the entirety of the Ranch. P acquired the exclusive use of hunting rights on the entire Ranch during his lifetime. The Platts were granted exclusive recreational use of the Ranch during their lifetime; and the Helds were granted an exclusive privilege to use the Ranch for livestock grazing purposes. The Helds transferred ownership of their parcel to Twin Hearts Smiling Horses, Inc. (D), and P transferred ownership of his parcel to Twin Hearts, LLC. P believed that irrigated alfalfa fields would increase the amount of game attracted and retained on the property in certain areas. Initially, P and Held attempted to utilize a flood irrigation system, already located in the area but in disrepair and inoperable, to grow alfalfa. These efforts ceased in 2010. P proposed to irrigate the area using a pivot irrigation system. P said he would pick up the primary costs associated with setup and installation and the Helds would be responsible for all ongoing maintenance and operational costs. P selected and hired Agri-Systems, Inc. (Agri) to provide and install the pivot irrigation system, and drew up plans indicating where the irrigation was to occur. Held had prepared the relevant areas and was ready to plant alfalfa by April 2011. The irrigation system was not installed until October 2011. At the start of the 2012 growing season, Held proceeded to operate the irrigation system. A pivot head caught on a fence and was damaged, rendering the pivot unusable until repaired. A motor was burned out and a supply pipe burst. The irrigation system was taken offline in May 2012. Shortly after the irrigation system was taken offline. The pivot irrigation system remained unrepaired and offline during May and June of 2012. On July 8, 2012, P notified Held that he had sold the pivots and that Agri would enter the property to dismantle and remove the pivots, electrical boxes, motors, pumps, and other components not buried in the ground. The workers arrived on the property and commenced removing the system, successfully dismantling one of the pivots. Held directed them to leave the property. While they left the dismantled pivot on the property, the workers left without reassembling the system. P filed this action arguing that the pivot irrigation system should be returned to his possession, that Ds had converted his property by exercising unauthorized dominion or control over the irrigation system, that Ds had been unjustly enriched through their possession of the irrigation system, and that Ds have caused him damages by way of lost opportunity and revenue. D claimed that P had trespassed when he and his workers attempted to remove the irrigation system, and that P had breached the contract between the two parties by failing to perform (arguing that the irrigation system was never completely or correctly installed, and therefore not operational), that allowing P to remove the irrigation system would breach the agreement between the parties, and breach of a general duty of care for the alleged operation of an 'unlicensed' outfitting or hunting guide operation. The Court determined that the irrigation system, in its entirety, was a fixture and attached to the real property owned by D and, therefore, the irrigation system was owned by D. It also held that neither party was liable to the other on the rest of their claims. P appealed.