Holcomb v. Rodriguez
2016 NMCA 75
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs W.J. and Sharon Holcomb own land south of Defendants Avedon Rodriguez and Theresa Martinez; a wash runs from Plaintiffs’ property across Defendants’ land to the San Juan River.
- Defendants (through hired contractor Lucas Lucero) performed earthmoving that channeled and built berms in the wash, including work on Plaintiffs’ property without permission; Plaintiffs later experienced erosion and flooding damage in 2010 and incurred remediation costs.
- Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief and damages for common-law trespass (and initially criminal trespass under §30-14-1(D)); Defendants counterclaimed for trespass and sought to quiet title, alleging Plaintiffs’ fence encroached on their land.
- At trial the district court granted a directed verdict against Defendants on their trespass counterclaim for failure to prove actual damages; a jury found for Plaintiffs on their trespass claim and awarded $33,506.40; the court quieted title to the boundary as shown by Plaintiffs’ survey.
- Plaintiffs dismissed their criminal trespass claim; post-judgment the district court awarded post-judgment interest at 8.75% and prejudgment interest (up to 10%)—Plaintiffs cross-appealed the post-judgment rate as insufficient under §56-8-4(A)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court (equity) or jury (law) should decide the north–south boundary | Holcomb: Quiet title in equity may be decided by court; jury not required for boundary after quiet title claim resolved | Rodriguez: Jury should have fixed boundary related to trespass counterclaims | Court: Court properly decided boundary via quiet title; jury role limited to trespass counterclaims—no reversible error on boundary determination |
| Whether directed verdict on Defendants’ trespass counterclaim was erroneous | Holcomb: Directed verdict proper because Defendants presented no evidence enabling jury to fix actual damages | Rodriguez: Trespass does not require proof of actual damages; nominal damages allowable, so case should have gone to jury | Court: Although proof of damages not an element of trespass, Defendants failed to preserve nominal-damages theory and presented no evidence to quantify damages—directed verdict affirmed |
| Whether NMSA §30-14-6 (posting statute) bars civil trespass liability or required jury instruction | Holcomb: §30-14-6 concerns posting to prevent trespass and criminal trespass standards, not a defense to common-law trespass | Rodriguez: §30-14-6 imposes posting duty and prevents civil liability absent posting; instruction should be given | Court: §30-14-6 governs when land is "posted" for criminal trespass standards and does not abrogate common-law trespass—refusal to give instruction was correct |
| Proper rate for post-judgment interest under §56-8-4(A)(2) | Holcomb: Judgment based on tort (trespass) triggers mandatory 15% post-judgment interest | Rodriguez: 15% applies only to intentional torts; no evidence of intentional trespass here | Court: Follows Sandoval—"tortious" in §56-8-4(A)(2) covers all torts; trespass is a tort; award must be 15%—district court abused discretion in using 8.75% |
Key Cases Cited
- Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726 (directed verdict standard)
- Mascarenas v. Jaramillo, 111 N.M. 410 (damages must be proved with reasonable certainty)
- Sims v. Sims, 122 N.M. 618 (statutes construed in light of preexisting common law)
- Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 146 N.M. 853 (§56-8-4(A)(2) 15% rate applies to judgments based on torts)
- Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, N.A. v. Colucci, 117 N.M. 373 (post-judgment interest is mandatory and statutory)
- McNeill v. Rice Engineering & Operating, Inc., 148 N.M. 16 (trespass is a tort)