Apecella v. Overman

Summary

The Court affirmed the District Court’s determination that Overman failed to prove extinguishment of Apecellas’ irrigation ditch easement by abandonment or reverse adverse possession. It held that Overman did not satisfy the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden because the evidence showed continued or intermittent water delivery and conduct inconsistent with sustained, exclusive, adverse obstruction. The Court also affirmed the award of attorney fees because Apecellas prevailed on every claim they pursued under the statutory ditch-interference provision.