Arreola v. Ortiz
34,107
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2016Background
- In 1987 Arreola and Jesus Valles bought 3.5 acres from Nora Green; deed unrecorded and they agreed to divide the tract (no precise legal description assigning specific acres).
- Arreola occupied and developed his portion (auto salvage business, leases); a 1996 survey described Arreola’s parcel as ~1.37 acres and he built a boundary wall that year.
- Ortiz leased Arreola’s salvage yard from 2000–2010 (ten-year lease); rent and later modification terms were documented, and Ortiz built a structure on the property.
- Ortiz claims he purchased Valles’s interest from heirs and occupied a “Disputed Tract” after the lease expired; Arreola sued for quiet title, ejectment, breach of contract, and UORRA violations.
- Arreola moved for summary judgment on title (including adverse possession), ejectment, and breach of contract; Ortiz and Valles’s heirs did not respond. The district court granted summary judgment on title, ejectment, and breach liability but left damages and UORRA issues for trial.
- After a bench trial the court awarded damages to Arreola for unpaid rent, utilities, and damage to the building, and ruled for Ortiz on the UORRA claim. Ortiz appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arreola obtained title to the disputed tract (quiet title/adverse possession) | Arreola argued the cotenants’ division agreement plus his exclusive possession, survey, tax payments and acts (wall, improvements) established title by adverse possession or partition | Ortiz argued the partition agreement lacked a legal description so was void and Arreola failed to prove color of title and continuous ad valorem tax payments required for adverse possession | Court affirmed: record supported adverse possession/color of title and tax-payment evidence; nonresponse deemed admission of moving party’s facts and no unfairness in deciding on the merits |
| Whether Ortiz is liable for rent after lease expiration | Arreola claimed Ortiz remained in possession and breached lease, owing unpaid rent and related damages | Ortiz claimed he was a good-faith purchaser of Valles’s interest and thus not liable as a post-lease occupant | Court affirmed liability; Ortiz forfeited the good-faith purchaser argument by not raising it below |
| Whether damages should be reduced by rent Arreola received from other tenants after Ortiz vacated | Arreola sought full rent damages; Ortiz argued mitigation/reduction for rents Arreola collected from others | Ortiz did not preserve the mitigation argument at trial | Court declined to review forfeited mitigation argument; award stands |
| Whether damages should be reduced because Ortiz occupied only part of the property after lease expiration | Arreola sought full damages for the area Ortiz occupied; Ortiz sought proportional reduction | Ortiz failed to raise this issue at trial or preserve it for appeal | Court declined to review forfeited partial-occupation argument; award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Hydro Res. Corp. v. Gray, 143 N.M. 142, 173 P.3d 749 (N.M. 2007) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Romero v. Philip Morris Inc., 148 N.M. 713, 242 P.3d 280 (N.M. 2010) (summary judgment disfavored; resolve inferences for nonmovant)
- Wisznia v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep’t, 125 N.M. 140, 958 P.2d 98 (N.M. 1998) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Lujan v. City of Albuquerque, 134 N.M. 207, 75 P.3d 423 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (district court must assess the merits even if response to summary judgment is lacking)
- Atherton v. Gopin, 340 P.3d 630 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (court cannot grant summary judgment solely as unopposed; must evaluate merits)
- In re Estate of Duran, 133 N.M. 553, 66 P.3d 326 (N.M. 2003) (heightened considerations when a cotenant seeks whole-estate title by adverse possession)
- Polaco v. Prudencio, 148 N.M. 872, 242 P.3d 439 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of adverse possession)
- Bd. of Trs. of Tecolote Land Grant v. Griego, 136 N.M. 688, 104 P.3d 554 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (adverse-possession element definitions)
- Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 825 P.2d 1241 (N.M. 1992) (burden shifts on summary judgment once movant makes prima facie showing)
- Cordova v. World Fin. Corp. of N.M., 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901 (N.M. 2009) (affirming for any correct reason absent unfairness to appellant)
- Woolwine v. Furr’s, Inc., 106 N.M. 492, 745 P.2d 717 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (preservation rule: issues must be raised below to be reviewable on appeal)