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 Plaintiff, a vendor under a real estate contract, sold property to buyers who failed to pay property taxes, leading to a tax sale. The Defendants purchased the property at the tax sale. The Plaintiff later declared a forfeiture of the real estate contract and received a special warranty deed from the buyers, claiming legal title to the property. The Plaintiff then sued the Defendants to quiet title, asserting ownership based on the special warranty deed or a perfected interest under the recorded real estate contract (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Socorro County: Denied the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiff's interests in the property were conveyed to the Defendants through the tax deed (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that it retained legal title to the property through the special warranty deed or, alternatively, held a perfected interest under the recorded real estate contract, which survived the tax sale (para 3).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the Plaintiff was an "owner" under the Property Tax Code and that the tax deed conveyed all of the Plaintiff's interests in the property to them (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Whether a vendor under a real estate contract is an "owner" of property under the Property Tax Code (para 4).
- Whether a tax sale conducted under the Property Tax Code extinguishes the vendor's interests in the property (para 4).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff's interests in the property were conveyed to the Defendants through the tax deed (para 17).
Reasons
Per Ransom CJ (Baca and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court determined that under the Property Tax Code, a vendor under a real estate contract qualifies as an "owner" because the Code defines "owner" as "the person in whom is vested any title to property" (paras 5-6). The Court overruled prior case law inconsistent with this interpretation (para 7).
The Court held that the tax deed conveyed all of the Plaintiff's interests in the property, including legal title, reversionary interest, and perfected security interest, as the Plaintiff was a "former property owner" under the Code (paras 8-10, 14).
The Court reasoned that the statutory language of the Property Tax Code, which states that a tax deed conveys "all of the former property owner's interest in the real property," is unambiguous and includes perfected interests in real property held by the former owner (paras 12-14).
The Court noted that property owners can protect their interests by paying delinquent taxes upon receiving notice of a pending tax sale or by challenging the validity of the tax sale after it occurs (paras 15-16).
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's interests in the property were extinguished by the tax sale, and the Defendants acquired full ownership through the tax deed (para 17).