2015 NMCA 004
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 1928 the Wilsons (Judson, Eva, Mabel) conveyed 160 acres in San Juan County to David Miller but expressly reserved the oil and gas rights; the deed was recorded in San Juan County.
- Miller’s brother Thomas obtained title; in October 1948 Thomas Miller filed a quiet-title action in San Juan County naming the Wilsons ("if living, or if deceased, by their unknown heirs") and served them only by publication in a local Farmington paper; the sheriff’s return reflected searches limited to San Juan County.
- The 1948 court entered judgment quieting fee simple title in Miller; subsequent conveyances and leases (recorded locally) flowed from that judgment and remain in effect.
- Evidence showed the Wilsons resided in San Diego (Pershing Avenue) from the 1920s through Mabel’s death in 1970; contemporaneous records (city directories, death certificate, obituary) tied them to San Diego.
- In 2002–2010 the Wilson heirs were located; plaintiffs (Wilson heirs and lessee McElvain) sued to quiet title to the reserved oil and gas interests, arguing the 1948 publication notice violated due process because Miller failed to exercise reasonable diligence to notify the Wilsons in San Diego.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants adopting a special master’s report; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 1948 notice by publication was constitutionally deficient and equitable defenses did not bar the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 1948 constructive service / due process | Miller knew or could have learned Wilsons lived in San Diego and thus failed to exercise reasonable diligence; publication in Farmington was inadequate | Publication in Farmington and sheriff’s return showing diligent search in San Juan County sufficed | Court held Miller did not exercise good faith diligence to find or notify the Wilsons in San Diego; publication only in Farmington did not satisfy due process |
| Collateral attack on 1948 judgment | Judgment is void as to Wilsons for lack of effective service; collateral attack permitted where court lacked jurisdiction | Judgment’s face and sheriff’s return show jurisdiction and proper publication; collateral attack not allowed absent affirmative record showing lack of jurisdiction | Court held collateral attack permissible because the 1948 record affirmatively shows Miller avoided disclosing out-of-state residence and did not diligently attempt service outside New Mexico |
| Equitable defenses: laches, waiver, judicial estoppel | Plaintiffs had no notice of the 1948 action or later transactions until 2002; equitable defenses thus inapplicable | Plaintiffs slept on rights for decades; recorded judgment and instruments put world on notice; defendants invested in development | Court held laches, waiver, and judicial estoppel were not supported: Plaintiffs lacked notice and did not acquiesce, and probate inventories do not establish inconsistent judicial positions |
| Issue not addressed below (presumed grant) | — | Defendants raised presumed grant as alternative basis for affirmance | Court declined to consider it because the district court and special master never decided the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (publication notice satisfies due process only when parties are unknown or missing and notice is reasonably calculated to inform)
- Hydro Res. Corp. v. Gray, 143 N.M. 142 (N.M. 2007) (summary judgment standard; review de novo)
- Campbell v. Doherty, 53 N.M. 280 (N.M. 1949) (diligence and good faith required when attempting to ascertain nonresident defendant’s whereabouts for service)
- Owens v. Owens, 32 N.M. 445 (N.M. 1927) (personal service required where defendant’s residence could be ascertained; constructive notice is in derogation of the common law)
- Skaggs v. Conoco, Inc., 125 N.M. 97 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (laches may bar claims where plaintiffs had actual notice long before suing and defendants substantially developed the property)
- Farrar v. Hood, 56 N.M. 724 (N.M. 1952) (laches applies where plaintiff delays asserting rights while defendants assume business risk and later detriment occurs)