Chang, Kyle K.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 52 9-1-2003 Edmonson v. Edwards, 111 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) Kyle K. Chang Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Kyle K. Chang, Court Report, Edmonson v. Edwards, 111 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003), 7 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 204 (2003). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. WATER LAWREVIEWcourt concluded that the covenant ran with the land.The court also reversed the circuit court's holding that theCamenisches were precluded from arguing anything other than acondition subsequent. The City claimed the Camnisches argued, inearlier litigation, that the interest was a condition subsequent and thatthe City relied to its detriment on that argument. The City contendedthe Camenisches could not now change their position. The courtfound in favor of the Camenisches on this issue, holding the City hadevery right to its own interpretation of the clause and did not rely totheir detriment on the Camenisches interpretation. Therefore, thecourt held the clause created a covenant that ran with the land,vacated the circuit court's judgment, and remanded the case for thecircuit court to hear other defenses the City intended to employ.Robert E. WellsMISSOURIEdmonson v. Edwards, 111 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (affirmingcircuit courtjudgment awarding riparian owner injunctive relief anddamages for injuries sustained when upstream owner of a neighboringproperty dammed a stream that flowed through both pieces of land).R.G. Edmonson and Doug Edwards owned adjoining parcels ofreal estate through which a stream flowed. A spring originating northof both properties fed the stream, which flowed through Edwards'sland across and onto Edmonson's land. Edwards constructed a damon the stream to fill two ponds on his property for recreational use.The dam effectively stopped water flowing to Edmonson's property, asit completely diverted stream water into the ponds on Edwards'sproperty. Edmonson filed suit against Edwards in the Barry CountyCircuit Court. The circuit court granted Edmonson damages and apermanent injunction ordering Edwards to dismantle the dam.Edwards appealed the circuit court's decision.Edwards asserted on appeal that (1) the circuit court's judgmentdenied him reasonable use of the stream, (2) injunctive relief wasimproper because Edmonson did not incur any harm, and (3)Edmonson was not entitled to damages. The Missouri Court ofAppeals initially found that Edwards's brief did not explain how thelegal reasons for his appeal supported the claim of reversible error, asmandated by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 84.04(a). However, the court stated thatit nonetheless could look to the argument portion of the brief todetermine whether the circuit court committed plain error that mayhave resulted in manifest injustice.The court first analyzed whether the injunction deprived Edwardsof a reasonable use of the stream by virtue of his riparian ownership.The court found that what constitutes a reasonable use is a question ofVolume 7COURT REPORTSfact depending on the circumstances of the specific case. Here,Edwards's dam deprived Edmonson of water for livestock. Edmonsonfarmed and worked on his property for over fifty years. To hisknowledge, throughout those fifty years the stream never lackedsufficient water for his farm. The court found that Edwards's damharmed Edmonson, as he needed to move his livestock from hisproperty to another location. Furthermore, the court found thatEdwards did not have exclusive tifle to, or control of, the stream'swater, even while it was on his land. The court stated an owner of landthrough which a nonnavigable stream flows could not divert thestream's water to the exclusion of others. Because Edwards divertedthe stream to the exclusion of Edmonson, the court found thatEdwards's use of the stream unreasonable. The court also concludedEdwards's unreasonable use of the stream damaged Edmonson, andtherefore the circuit court correctly awarded Edmonson injunctiverelief.Finally, Edwards argued that if Edmonson was entitled toinjunctive relief, such relief barred him from collecting damages.Because evidence showed Edmonson incurred monetary damages inaddition to irreparable harm, the court held he was entitled to seekboth damages and injunctive relief. Since the court found no error, itaffirmed the circuit courtjudgment.Kyle K ChangNEVADAPreferred Equities Corp. v. State Eng'r, 75 P.3d 380 (Nev. 2003)(holding (1) an application to change water diversion point was mootdue to forfeiture and failure to appeal forfeiture within thirty days; (2)application to change place and manner of use of water rights did nottoll the forfeiture period; and (3) equitable relief was unavailable towater rights holder who did not make beneficial use of water rights).In 1988, Preferred Equities Corporation ("PEC") applied to theState Engineer for a change in the diversion point and usage of PEC'swater rights. The State Engineer did not immediately act on thatapplication and, in 1992, began forfeiture proceedings on the samewater rights. In 1996, concluding PEC had not utilized the waterrights for a period exceeding five years, the State Engineer declaredthe rights in forfeit. PEC did not appeal. In February 1997, the StateEngineer issued a ruling denying the 1988 application to change thediversion and usage of the forfeited rights. In May 1997, PEC soughtjudicial review of the February ruling. The Fifth Judicial District Courtagreed with the State Engineer that PEC's appeal was an impermissibleattempt to review a finally adjudicated forfeiture. The court alsoagreed the State Engineer's properly denied the application to changeIssue 1

Edmonson v. Edwards, 111 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2300&context=wlr

Edmonson v. Edwards, 111 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver