{"id":23,"date":"2016-10-10T21:36:19","date_gmt":"2016-10-10T21:36:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/?p=23"},"modified":"2016-10-10T21:36:19","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T21:36:19","slug":"meguerditchian-v-smith-court-provides-guidance-regarding-adequate-water-right-description-in-sheriff-sales","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/?p=23","title":{"rendered":"Meguerditchian v. Smith: Court Provides Guidance Regarding Adequate Water Right Description in Sheriff Sales"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 2008, the trial court awarded Meguerditchian $55,000 in a breach of contract action. \u00a0Meguerditchian filed for a writ of execution, listing private and real property and water rights belonging to Smith. \u00a0The trial court approved the writ and instructed the sheriff to sell non-exempt personal property, then real property, if necessary. \u00a0The sheriff did not locate personal property and posted a notice of sale for Smith\u2019s interest in (1) a 9.42 acre parcel, (2) an Oaker Hills Plat 4 Parcel, (3) water right 51-224, and (4) \u201cother rights of [Smith] in water rights and\/or interests in water wells located in Sanpete County, Utah.\u201d \u00a0Smith sought to set aside the motion for summary judgment and quash the sale; the court denied his motion. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

At the Sheriff sale Meguerditchian purchased the 9.42 acre parcel for $3,000, the Oaker Hills Plat 4 for $30,000, water right 51-224 for $30,000, and the other water rights for $3,000. \u00a0Smith moved to set aside the sale and the court found that the value of the two parcels was $505,000 and the water rights was about $150,000. \u00a0The trial court determined that the sale prices for the real property and water rights was \u201cgrossly inadequate, shocking the conscience of the Court.\u201d \u00a0However, the court found there was nothing misleading, irregular, or unfair about the sale itself. \u00a0The trial court denied Smith\u2019s motion to set aside the sale of the real property and granted its motion to set aside the sale of the water rights. \u00a0Smith appealed the ruling regarding the sale of real property; Meguerditchian appealed the trial court\u2019s ruling regarding the water rights. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On appeal, Smith argued that the purchase price for the property was so low in this case, that the court should set aside the sheriff sale even without any irregularities in the sale. \u00a0While the Court acknowledged that Smith\u2019s argument may be true, it stated that a sheriff sale has never been set aside solely on price in Utah case law. \u00a0Therefore, the Court declined to rule on the issue of whether a court could set aside a sheriff\u2019s sale based on inadequate price alone. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Declining to Set Aside the Sheriff\u2019s Sale in the Absence of Irregularities<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The trial court possesses a \u201chigh degree of discretion\u201d in determining whether to invalidate the sheriff\u2019s sale; the Court would only reverse where it found the trial court\u2019s decision to be unreasonable. \u00a0\u00a0Here, the defendant paid $33,000 for $505,000 worth of property, or 1\/15 of the market value. \u00a0The Court determined that this discrepancy \u201cwhile significant, does not present an exceptional discrepancy between the purchase price and the market value.\u201d \u00a0The Court therefore affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision to not set aside the sheriff\u2019s sale in the absence of irregularities.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Trial Court Did not Abuse its Discretion in Determining There Were No Irregularities in the Sale<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Where the purchase price is grossly inadequate, even slight circumstances of unfairness in the conduct of the party benefiting from the sale will create a presumption of fraud. \u00a0To this end, Smith argued that Meguerditchian failed to provide the sheriff with complete information regarding Smith\u2019s personal property, which property should have been sold before the land and water rights. \u00a0The Court disagreed and held that the sale was not misleading or irregular because the Sheriff looked for, but could not locate personal property identified by Meguerditchian and Smith objected to the sale of personal property. \u00a0The Court also upheld the trial court\u2019s decision that Meguerditchian was not misleading or unfair and that there were no irregularities in the sale. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Trial Court Erred in Determining that Water Right 51-224 Was Not Adequately Described<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Notice of Sale described two separate water rights. \u00a0The first was for \u201c[a]ll rights of [Smith] in water right number 51-224, and all other rights of [Smith] in water coming from and the well producing said water.\u201d \u00a0The trial court ruled this was an inadequate description because several water rights had been severed from this water right and renumbered. \u00a0The second was for \u201c[o]ther water rights of [Smith] in water rights and\/or interests in water wells located in Sanpete County, Utah.\u201d \u00a0The trial court also found this description inadequate. \u00a0On appeal, the Court disagreed that the segregation and renumbering of parts of water right 51-224 affected the adequacy of the Notice of Sale\u2019s description of the water right. \u00a0The Court determined that \u201cbecause anyone who searched the property records would have been able to immediately determine what interest Smith held in water right 51-224, the description in the notice provided a sufficiently, \u2018particular description of the property to be sold\u2019\u201d as required by Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(b)(3). \u00a0The Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the sale of water right 51-224. \u00a0The Court did not discuss the trial court\u2019s setting aside of the sale of Smith\u2019s other water rights, leaving this ruling in place. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there were no irregularities in the Sheriff\u2019s sale and that, in the absence of irregularities, the price alone was not a reasonable basis to invalidate the sale. \u00a0The Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the sale of water right 51-224 because Smith\u2019s interest in this water rights was easily discoverable. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This case is important for all parties purchasing and selling water rights in a Sheriff\u2019s sale because it provides guidance on how parties should describe water rights to be sold. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction   In 2008, the trial court awarded Meguerditchian $55,000 in a breach of contract action. \u00a0Meguerditchian filed for a writ of execution, listing private and real property and water rights belonging to Smith. \u00a0The trial court approved the writ …<\/p>\n

Meguerditchian v. Smith: Court Provides Guidance Regarding Adequate Water Right Description in Sheriff Sales<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23\/revisions\/24"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.mwjlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}