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 concerns a real estate transaction in which the plaintiff purchased a half-acre parcel of land from the defendants for $10,000 under a contract that required the plaintiff to quiet the title at his own expense or rescind the contract within six months. The plaintiff later discovered title defects and spent $20,000 to cure them. The defendants only owned a one-fourth interest in the property at the time of the sale (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court found that the defendants breached their title warranty, modified the contract price to reflect the defendants' one-fourth ownership interest, and ordered the defendants to refund 75% of the purchase price to the plaintiff (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the trial court's judgment modifying the contract price was not supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff had assumed responsibility for curing title defects under the contract (paras 6-7).
- Appellee (Plaintiff): Contended that the defendants breached the title warranty by failing to deliver full fee simple title, entitling him to a reduction in the purchase price (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the defendants breach the title warranty by failing to deliver full fee simple title to the property?
- Did the plaintiff waive his right to challenge the title defects by agreeing to cure them at his own expense under the contract? (paras 6-8)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion (para 12).
Reasons
Per Wilson J. (Baca and Montgomery JJ. concurring):
The court held that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, knowingly assumed the responsibility for curing title defects under the contract. The contract explicitly allowed the plaintiff to either cure title defects at his own expense or rescind the contract within six months. By choosing to cure the defects and failing to rescind the contract within the stipulated time, the plaintiff waived his right to challenge the title conveyed. The defendants had no duty to perfect the title, and without such a duty, there could be no breach. The trial court erred in reducing the contract price, as the plaintiff received what he had bargained for (paras 8-12).