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 plaintiffs purchased a forty-acre tract of land in 1981 under a warranty deed. They were assured by the grantors that neighboring property owners' use of a portion of the land was permissive and would cease upon request. However, in 1985, the neighbors claimed fee title to a portion of the land based on boundary by acquiescence and a prescriptive easement, leading to litigation.

Procedural History

• Trial Court: The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbors, quieting title to 1.474 acres in their favor and granting them a prescriptive easement.
• New Mexico Court of Appeals, Lane v. Bloom, Ct. App. No. 9266 (filed Oct. 16, 1987): Reversed the trial court's decision, quieting title to the forty-acre tract in favor of the plaintiffs, except for a prescriptive easement over 0.302 acres.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the grantors breached warranty covenants by failing to defend the title and sought reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in defending against the neighbors' adverse claims.
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that they had no responsibility for the neighbors' claims and that the plaintiffs failed to make a specific demand for them to defend the title.

Legal Issues

• Whether the grantors breached the warranty covenants by failing to defend the plaintiffs' title against the neighbors' adverse claims.
• Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees for defending their title.

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court was affirmed as to the immediate grantors but reversed as to the remote grantors. The case was remanded for the trial court to award reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs, limited to the costs of defending the title claim.

Reasons

Per Ransom J. (Baca and Montgomery JJ. concurring):

• Warranty Covenants: The court held that warranty covenants obligate grantors to defend the title against lawful claims. However, liability for attorney fees depends on whether the grantor had responsibility or knowledge of the adverse claim and whether the grantee made a demand for defense.
• Immediate Grantors: The immediate grantors were not shown to have had responsibility or knowledge of the neighbors' claims at the time of the conveyance. Therefore, they were not liable for the plaintiffs' attorney fees.
• Remote Grantors: The remote grantor, P.B. Hendricks, had actual knowledge of the boundary by acquiescence claim, as evidenced by his affidavit. This knowledge made the estate of P.B. Hendricks liable for the plaintiffs' attorney fees incurred in successfully defending the title.
• Demand Requirement: Although the plaintiffs did not make a specific demand for the grantors to defend the title, the remote grantor's knowledge of the adverse claim justified liability for the costs of a successful defense.