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

• Plaintiffs sued Defendants to quiet title to two tracts of land within the Montoya Ranch, located in the Tecolote Land Grant, San Miguel County, New Mexico. This lawsuit followed a previous action where Defendants had sued the Tecolote Land Grant, resulting in a series of legal decisions that ultimately did not favor the Defendants' claim to title. During the proceedings of the current action, the parties verbally agreed to a settlement that included the establishment of equitable liens against the tracts in question. Disagreements arose regarding the terms of the settlement, leading to the present appeal by Plaintiff Jill Montoya Marlow, challenging the district court's enforcement of the settlement agreement.

Procedural History

• Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant ex rel. Tecolote Bd. of Trs., 2008-NMCA-014: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, which had favored Defendants, and remanded with instructions to dismiss Defendants’ complaint.
• Montoya, 2008-NMCERT-010: The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and then quashed it.
• Montoya, 129 S. Ct. 1622 (2009): Defendants unsuccessfully sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that no settlement agreement was formally entered into as the terms were to be placed in a signed agreement, which never occurred due to disagreements on the content. Contended that the district court's order granting equitable liens contained terms not discussed or agreed upon, including an award of attorney fees, foreclosure of the lien, the date interest began to run, and the right of Defendants to receive payment in land if a tract was partitioned.
• Defendants: Maintained that the essential terms of the settlement were agreed upon and placed on the record, including the establishment of equitable liens, the amounts, and interest terms. Argued that the details questioned by Plaintiff were not essential and that the district court had the authority to enter an order without a signed settlement agreement. Addressed Plaintiff's specific complaints, attributing some to typographical errors and others to legal standards or proposals made by Plaintiff.

Legal Issues

• Whether the discrepancies between the verbal settlement agreement and the district court's order materially changed the agreement.
• Whether the grant of attorney fees in the district court's order was erroneous and unenforceable.

Disposition

• The grant of attorney fees was found to be erroneous and unenforceable.
• The court affirmed the enforcement of the verbal settlement agreement, except for the grant of attorney fees.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that the discrepancies between the verbal agreement and the district court's order did not materially change the agreement, except for the grant of attorney fees, which was deemed erroneous and unenforceable. The court found that a verbal settlement was effectively placed on the record, and the district court did not err in enforcing the settlement terms, as they were reasonably certain and did not materially change the verbal agreement. The court also noted that the parties' inability to agree on a written agreement did not prevent the district court from determining that a settlement occurred and stating the terms of the settlement.