Nielsen v. Cronquist

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in Nielsen v. Cronquist. The case addressed the issue of awarding attorney fees in water cases.

The Nielsens and the Cronquists were neighboring landowners in Smithfield, Utah. The parties sued each other over a number of issues, including boundary issues and water issues. The Nielsens' parcel included a retention pond that stored water from Swamp Springs, where "all parties enjoy[ed] established water rights." Two water lines extended from the pond across the Nielsens' property to the Cronquists' property. One line provided water for irrigation and the other line provided water for a horse trough. The Nielsens' parcel also included a water pump that pulled water from Miles Spring. This pump and associated water line provided culinary water to the Nielsens' home and to the Cronquists' home. The Cronquists paid the Nielsens for the electricity required to pump the spring water to the Cronquists' home.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Nielsens disconnected the water line to the Cronquists' horse trough and also intermittently turned off the valve controlling the irrigation water. The parties brought competing claims against each other related to the water, including the Cronquists alleging that the Nielsens had interfered with their water rights and the Nielsens alleging that the Cronquists were "illegally diverting water" from Miles Spring and wrongfully installing water lines across the Nielsens' property. 

Following a five-day trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the Nielsens. The court concluded that the Nielsens had wrongfully interfered with the Cronquists' water rights in Swamp Springs and that the Nielsens' claims regarding the Miles Spring water were "without merit" and "improperly motivated." The district court also awarded attorney fees to the Cronquists based on Utah Code section 73-2-28 (which allows for attorney fees in cases involving "injuries caused by a diversion of water in violation of an existing water right) and Utah Code section 78B-5-825 (which allows for attorney fees in cases where a claim is found to be "without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith). The Cronquists' attorneys filed affidavits and time records supporting their claimed attorney fees. Because the Cronquists could only collect attorney fees on the water claims (and not the boundary claims and other claims in the case), the attorneys noted that some time entries (related to work solely on water issues) should be collected at 100% while other time entries (related to work on water issues and other case issues) should be collected at 33%. The court determined that the Cronquists' attorneys had "made reasonable efforts in calculating attorney fees" and granted the award of fees.

The Nielsens appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. The Nielsens asserted that the district court had incorrectly determined the amount of reasonable attorney fees. The Court noted that the Nielsens did not challenge the determination that the Cronquists were entitled to attorney fees, but rather the amount of the fees that were awarded. The Court determined that the affidavits and time entries provided by the Cronquists' attorneys provided a reasonable and rational basis for the fees awarded. The Court therefore concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion on the amount of attorney fees awarded.

To read the full opinion, click here.