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

• The case involves a dispute over the title and possession of multiple properties. The Plaintiffs sought to quiet title and eject the Defendant from these properties. The conflict centered around the intent to convey the properties, as evidenced by a memorandum executed in July 1992 and deeds from the same year. The Defendant contested the Plaintiffs' claim, arguing that he did not sign the 1992 memorandum and that the evidence supported his title to the properties.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, Sheri A. Raphaelson, District Judge: The district court granted Plaintiffs quiet title and ordered the ejection of the Defendant from the properties.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they did not intend to convey the property to the Defendant, as indicated by the memorandum executed in July 1992.
• Defendant: Contested the Plaintiffs' claim by asserting that he did not sign the 1992 memorandum and argued that the evidence supported his title to the properties.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter findings and conclusions following the filing of Defendant’s notice of appeal.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs did not possess the requisite intent to deed or convey the properties at issue.
• Whether the district court erred in quieting title to properties not referenced in the complaint.
• Whether the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs had met the “good faith” requirement of a quiet title action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the district court's order granting Plaintiffs quiet title and ejecting Defendant from the properties.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, J., WECHSLER, J., ZAMORA, J.: The Court found that the district court was within its authority to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law because the Defendant’s notice of appeal was premature (paras 2-3). The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Plaintiffs did not intend to convey the property to the Defendant, as evidenced by the 1992 memorandum (paras 3-4). The Court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence and determined that it supported the district court's decision to grant quiet title to the Plaintiffs, noting that the credibility of live witnesses and the weighing of evidence are matters for the trial court (para 4). The Court considered and rejected the Defendant's proposed issues for review in his motion to amend the docketing statement, finding one moot and the others not viable or already addressed (paras 5-8).