in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Gardner-Zemke Co. v. State, 109 N.M. 729, 732, 790 P.2d 1010, 1013 (1990). Summary judgment is foreclosed either when the record discloses the existence of a genuine controversy concerning a material issue of fact, or when the trial court granted summary judgment based upon an error of law. See id.; see also Garcia v. Sanchez, 108 N.M. 388, 395, 772 P.2d 1311, 1318 (Ct.App.1989). Severance of Water Rights {11} The trial court determined that the facts material to disposition of this issue are not in dispute. We agree. We, however, hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that the Bassetts successfully severed the appurtenant water rights prior to sale of the property. See id. at 395, 772 P.2d at 1318 (<HOLDING>). The trial court decided that the water rights
recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law holding that if summary judgment is reversed and remanded parties are not limited to theories asserted in original summary judgment at later trial on merits holding that affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient