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 case involves a land dispute near the Village of Cabezon in New Mexico between the Lucero and Tachias families. The Luceros sought to quiet title in their favor for specific land parcels and claimed adverse possession of a tract within one of these parcels. The Tachiases countered, asserting superior title to the disputed lands and filed counterclaims for various infringements by the Luceros, including trespass and interference with access.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, George P. Eichwald, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants (Luceros): Argued that they hold clean and clear title to the disputed land parcels and claimed adverse possession of a specific tract. They contested the district court's findings and conclusions, particularly regarding the quieting of title in favor of the Tachiases, the determination on adverse possession, and the award of nominal and punitive damages to the Tachiases.
• Defendants-Appellees (Tachiases): Responded that their title to the disputed land was superior and asserted counterclaims for slander of title, malicious abuse of process, trespass, interference with access, ejectment, establishment of easement, violation of court order, and damages.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law quieting title to the disputed land in favor of the Tachiases were supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the Luceros acquired an approximate 2.7-acre tract of Lot 3 (the Hovey Tract) through adverse possession.
• Whether the district court erred in adopting the Tachiases’ requested findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim.
• Whether the jury’s award of nominal and punitive damages to the Tachiases should be vacated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's final judgment in favor of the Tachiases, including the quieting of title to the disputed lands, the conclusion on adverse possession, and the award of nominal and punitive damages.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and Stephen G. French concurring, found that:
  The district court's findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, including the determination that the Luceros did not demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of adverse possession for the required ten-year statutory period (paras 3-11).
  The Luceros waived their argument on the sufficiency of evidence by failing to include the substance of evidence bearing upon their challenge (para 5).
  The district court did not err in adopting the Tachiases’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as this practice is not per se reversible error if the findings are supported by substantial evidence (paras 12-13).
  The Luceros' arguments against the jury's award of damages were rejected because they either hinged on a favorable determination on the merits of their claims to the disputed land, which was not granted, or were not preserved for appeal due to lack of proper post-trial motion or misunderstanding of the basis for the damages awarded (paras 14-17).