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 1987, the Plaintiff and another individual purchased agricultural property in Gila, New Mexico. Two years later, they divided the property, with each party receiving land and water rights, and agreed to give each other the first right of refusal if they decided to sell. The property in question was later deeded to the Defendant after the co-owner's death. In 2015, the Defendant offered the Plaintiff the right of first refusal for the property at a specified price, but later communicated that the water rights would cost additional, leading to a dispute over the terms of the sale. The Plaintiff sought to exercise his right of first refusal under the original terms, while the Defendant eventually stated the property was no longer for sale. The Plaintiff then initiated legal action asserting breach of contract among other claims (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's first offer to sell the property included both land and water rights for a specified price and sought to enforce this agreement through legal action (paras 3-6).
• Defendant and the Mayberrys (Cross-Appellants): Asserted a counter-claim requesting the court to declare the Plaintiff’s right of first refusal void and unenforceable. They also argued that the Plaintiff relinquished his right of first refusal by initiating a lawsuit instead of accepting the proposed contract set out in the second offer (paras 6, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that the terms of the first offer were ambiguous and unenforceable.
• Whether the district court’s ruling was contrary to New Mexico water law.
• Whether the district court erred in precluding the Plaintiff from presenting legal argument at the hearing on his motion to reconsider.
• Whether the Plaintiff relinquished his right of first refusal by initiating a lawsuit instead of entering into the proposed contract set out in the second offer (paras 9, 13).

Disposition

• The district court's decision was affirmed, concluding that the Plaintiff maintained a right of first refusal for both the land and water rights of the property, but his right to purchase the land was limited to the offered price of $55,000 and had to be exercised within thirty days. The court found the first offer to be an invitation to negotiate rather than a firm offer due to ambiguity in its terms (paras 6-7).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Briana H. Zamora concurring, declined to address the Plaintiff's arguments due to deficiencies in his briefing, noting that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as members of the bar. The court emphasized the need for proper citation to the record and legal authority in briefs. Regarding the Cross-Appellants' arguments, the court found they did not demonstrate preservation of their arguments for appeal and failed to overcome the presumption of correctness applied in favor of the trial court's rulings. The court concluded that the cited authorities did not support the Cross-Appellants' contentions, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision (paras 9-17).