Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Haik v. Sandy City

Supreme Court of Utah
254 P.3d 171 (Utah 2011)


Facts

Around 1976, Harold Bentley and Saunders-Sweeney, Inc. (Saunders-Sweeney) conveyed a water right to Sandy City (defendant) by deed and entered into an Agreement of Sale for the water right with the mayor of Sandy City. The Agreement was recorded on January 14, 1997. Sandy City did not record the deed at the time. In 1978, Saunders-Sweeney conveyed property appurtenant to the water right, known as Lot 31, to Judith Saunders. Lot 31 was later conveyed to Lynn Biddulph in 1983. The deeds documenting the Lot 31 conveyances did not specifically reserve the water right. In 1999, Saunders-Sweeney conveyed all its interest in the water right to Biddulph. Biddulph recorded this deed. She then applied to the Utah State Engineer for a permanent change of water. Sandy City learned of the application and voiced its concern against the application, but Sandy City neither made a claim to the water right nor challenged Biddulph’s interest in the water right. In 2003, Biddulph conveyed the water right to LWC, L.L.C., which in turn conveyed the water right to Tolton (plaintiff). In October 2003, Tolton conveyed the water right to the Haiks (plaintiffs). Prior to the conveyance, Mark Haik (plaintiff) researched the chain of title for the water right. He searched back to 1983 or 1984 and thus did not uncover the 1976 Agreement of Sale. The Haiks recorded their deed to the water right on December 10, 2003. In 2004, the Haik Parties applied with the Utah Division of Water Rights to change the diversion point of the water right. Sandy City sought to oppose the Haiks’ application and, after investigation, uncovered the Agreement of Sale and the corresponding deed. Sandy City recorded the deed in April 2004. Tolton and the Haiks (Haik Parties) brought suit to quiet title to the water right. The district court granted the Haik Parties summary judgment.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Nehring, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.