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

• B.T.U. Block & Concrete, Inc. (BTU) initiated a lawsuit to quiet title to two adjacent tracts of land in Las Vegas, New Mexico, known as Tract 1 and Tract 2. BTU claimed ownership of Tract 1 and sought to prevent Tony C. Ortega from making adverse claims to it. For Tract 2, BTU claimed title by adverse possession or, alternatively, sought a private prescriptive easement over it. Ortega has record title to Tract 2, and no fences separate the two tracts. BTU has used Tract 2 for employee parking and to store concrete blocks since purchasing the property in 1983 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (BTU): Argued that it owns Tract 1 in fee simple absolute and claimed title to Tract 2 by adverse possession. Alternatively, BTU sought a private prescriptive easement over Tract 2 (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Ortega): Contested BTU’s record title to Tract 1 during the trial and argued that BTU lacks record title to Tract 1 and did not present clear and convincing evidence to prove title by adverse possession over Tract 1. Ortega also challenged the district court’s decision to quiet title to Tract 2 in favor of BTU by adverse possession (paras 4, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether BTU has record title or title by adverse possession to Tract 1.
• Whether BTU proved the elements of adverse possession of Tract 2.
• Whether BTU has a private prescriptive easement over Tract 2.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment quieting title to Tract 1 in favor of BTU.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision regarding Tract 2 and remanded to resolve BTU’s claim for a private prescriptive easement over Tract 2 (para 24).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, concurring):
  Tract 1
  The Court found that BTU satisfied the elements of adverse possession for Tract 1 by demonstrating continuous adverse possession for over ten years under color of title, in good faith, and payment of taxes on the property during these years (paras 9-13).
  Tract 2
  The Court agreed with Ortega that BTU failed to prove the elements of adverse possession for Tract 2, specifically lacking color of title and evidence of tax payments on Tract 2. The deed BTU relied on for color of title only described Tract 1, and there was no evidence BTU paid taxes on Tract 2. Consequently, BTU's claim for adverse possession over Tract 2 was not supported (paras 14-23).