AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner and his wife purchased property in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 1996 as a single man and single woman in joint tenancy. They married in 1997 and refinanced their mortgage in 2003, executing a quitclaim deed to themselves as husband and wife. The wife died intestate in 2008, leading to a dispute over the property's ownership between the petitioner and the wife's heirs, who claimed the property was held as a tenancy-in-common, not community property (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, July 22, 2016: Granted Respondents' motion for summary judgment, ruling the property was held as a tenancy-in-common, thereby entitling Respondent Patricia Q. Brown to three-eighths of the property.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued the property was community property and he should receive the wife's interest in the property. Submitted an affidavit stating both spouses' income was used for the property's expenses and they intended the surviving spouse to be the sole owner upon the other's death (para 4).
• Respondents: Claimed the property was held as a tenancy-in-common, not as community property, and they were entitled to the wife's interest in the property pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 45-2-102(A)(2) (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the property in question was held as a tenancy-in-common or as community property.
• Whether there was a clear and convincing evidence of spousal intent to transmute the property from separate to community property.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting Respondents' summary judgment is reversed (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion, and Judges Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment solely based on the quitclaim deed executed in 2003. The appellate court considered additional evidence presented by the petitioner, such as the joint title, use of community funds, and mutual understanding regarding the property. Taken collectively, this evidence could allow a fact-finder to determine that there was clear and convincing evidence of transmutation of the property into community property. Consequently, the appellate court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning the wife's intent, necessitating a trial on the merits (paras 5-9).