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 dispute centers around 6.2 acres of land in Terrero, New Mexico, historically occupied by Cristino Rivera and his heirs since the 1870s. The United States owned the land until 2009, when it was conveyed to Ramona Lawson, daughter of Encarnacion Rivera, and her husband. The controversy began with a mistake in the boundaries of a patent issued to Cristino Rivera in 1888, which was believed to include the subject property. Over the years, various attempts were made by the Rivera family to correct this mistake and gain title to the land, culminating in the United States Forest Service quitclaiming the property to Ramona and Boyd Lawson in 2009 following the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. Shirley Kelley, Encarnacion Rivera’s granddaughter, sought to probate the subject property as part of Encarnacion’s estate in 2016, leading to the current legal dispute (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Shirley Kelley): Argued that the subject property should be included in the Estate of Encarnacion Rivera, invoking judicial estoppel and the after-acquired title doctrine to claim an intestate share as an heir (para 1).
• Appellees (Lawsons): Filed a motion to exclude the property from Encarnacion’s estate and to close the probate proceedings, which was granted by the district court (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding the subject property from the Estate of Encarnacion Rivera.
• Whether judicial estoppel prevents the Lawsons from arguing that the subject property was not part of Encarnacion’s estate.
• Whether the doctrine of after-acquired title applies, giving Kelley an intestate share of the subject property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order to exclude the 6.2 acres of land from the Estate of Encarnacion Rivera (para 1).

Reasons

• Per B. Zamora, J. (M. Monica Zamora, C.J., and Megan P. Duffy, J., concurring):
  Judicial Estoppel: The court found that judicial estoppel did not apply because Ramona and Boyd Lawson were not successful in their litigation before the IBLA in a manner that would preclude them from arguing the subject property was not part of Encarnacion’s estate. The IBLA decision did not directly result in the conveyance of the subject property, and the property was eventually acquired through a settlement (paras 12-16).
  After-Acquired Title: The court concluded that the after-acquired title doctrine did not apply because the United States never conveyed the subject property to Cristino Rivera, and thus, it was not part of Encarnacion Rivera’s estate. The property was always owned by the United States until it was conveyed to Ramona and Boyd Lawson in 2009. The court also noted that the doctrine is doubtful in cases where title is conveyed via quitclaim deed, as was the case with Ignacita Rivera’s 1979 conveyance (paras 18-21).