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

• In 1983, the Plaintiff and Defendant, siblings, jointly purchased 2.5 acres of land in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The Plaintiff paid for and supervised the construction of a house on a portion of this land, later known as Lot 1, without any financial contribution from the Defendant or other family members. The property was subdivided into three lots in 1991, with the Plaintiff moving out of Lot 1 and the Defendant building a house on Lot 2. Despite the Plaintiff's financial contributions to Lot 1 and an oral agreement for the transfer of interests in Lots 1 and 2 between the siblings, the Defendant refused to transfer his interest in Lot 1 to the Plaintiff, leading to legal action (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for the rightful ownership of Lot 1, claiming unjust enrichment on the part of the Defendant and seeking a declaratory judgment to have the Defendant transfer his interest in Lot 1 to her (para 2).
• Defendant: Raised twelve issues on appeal but failed to comply with procedural rules regarding the preservation of issues, adequate citations, and authority for propositions, leading to a lack of consideration for these issues by the appellate court (paras 7-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in declaring the Plaintiff as the sole owner of Lot 1 and ordering the Defendant to execute a warranty deed to transfer his interest in the property to the Plaintiff.
• Whether the Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff.
• Whether the oral agreement between the parties was enforceable under the statute of frauds.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, declaring her the sole owner of Lot 1 and ordering the Defendant to transfer his interest in the property to her (para 11).

Reasons

• Per VIGIL, Chief Judge (BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and VANZI, Judge, concurring): The appellate court found the Defendant's appeal lacked compliance with procedural rules necessary for consideration of his issues. The court reviewed the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining they supported the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the grounds of unjust enrichment and the enforceability of the oral agreement regarding the transfer of property interests. The court also found the statute of frauds inapplicable due to the exception of part performance, as the Plaintiff had performed actions under the belief of the oral agreement being honored. The Defendant's failure to contest the district court's findings of fact rendered them binding on appeal. The appellate court dismissed the Defendant's remaining arguments due to non-compliance with procedural rules or because they were unclear or underdeveloped (paras 7-12).