First Baptist Church of Roswell v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 345 P.3d 310

Petitioners (First Baptist Church of Roswell et al.) claim interest on suspended oil and gas proceeds under New Mexico law.”
Yates Petroleum signed form division orders with Petitioners waiving interest if title issues delayed payments.”
Petitioners signed in 2003; after three years Yates paid each Petitioner their initial payments without interest.”
Section 70-10-4 of the Oil and Gas Proceeds Payments Act mandates interest on suspended funds once title disputes delay payment.”
District court held Yates owed interest; Court of Appeals reversed, allowing waiver of interest via contract; Supreme Court granted certiorari.”
Court reverses, holds Section 70-10-4 cannot be contracted away and favors payees’ right to interest under the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 70-10-4 can be waivable by contract	Yates argues waiver via division order is valid	Petitioners signed waiver; contract governs	No; statute cannot be contracted away
Whether 70-10-4 expresses a public policy favoring payees	Public policy supports payees’ right to interest	Policy should not override contract	Yes; public policy favors paying interest on suspended funds
How Murdock doctrine applies to 70-10-4	Murdock allows waivers under related statute	Murdock distinguishable; oil-and-gas statute is specific	Distinguishable; 70-10-4 controls, waiver invalid
Relation between 70-10-3 contractual modification and 70-10-4	Contractual modification permitted by 70-10-3 implies same for 70-10-4	Silence in 70-10-4 does not permit waiver; contract-modification not implied	No implied contract waiver; 70-10-4 unambiguous

Murdock v. Pure-Lively Energy 1981-A, Ltd., 108 N.M. 575, 775 P.2d 1292 (1989-NMSC-048) (section addressing contractual waivers of interest in title disputes (distinct statute))
Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp., 134 N.M. 341, 76 P.3d 1098 (2003-NMSC-024) (strong public policy of freedom to contract with limits)
Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 111 N.M. 106, 802 P.2d 11 (1990-NMSC-107) (contractual modification rights recognized)
Sims v. Sims, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (1996-NMSC-078) (courts will not add to statutory enactments by implication)
Quynh Truong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 147 N.M. 583, 227 P.3d 73 (2010-NMSC-009) (statutory interpretation; language as primary indicator of intent)
Bank of New York v. Romero, 320 P.3d 1 (2014-NMSC-007) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of legislative intent)