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 dispute among five family members over the partition of two ranches in Lea County, New Mexico, which they owned as tenants-in-common. The properties include the S & D Ranch and the Sims Brothers Ranch, comprising deeded land and state and federal grazing leases. Disagreements over ranch management led to legal action seeking partition of the properties (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, January 4, 1991: The court issued an interlocutory order recognizing the parties' ownership percentages in the ranches but did not address the grazing leases (para 6).
- District Court, November 5, 1991: The court modified the January order, allowing the Sims Group to pool their interests and correcting property descriptions to include omitted Texas lands (para 8).
- District Court, October 29, 1993: The court adopted the commissioners' recommendations for partition, awarding the S & D Ranch and part of the Sims Brothers Ranch to the Sims Group, with the remaining land and a cash owelty award to Aline Sims (paras 10-11).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Aline Sims): Argued that the New Mexico Partition Act does not allow partition of leaseholds, the Land Commissioner was an indispensable party, the pooling of interests violated the Act, and the partition order was prejudicial and improperly modified the commissioners' report (paras 12, 52, 60, 64, 66).
- Appellees (Sims Group): Contended that the Partition Act does not abrogate the court's equitable powers, leaseholds can be partitioned, the Land Commissioner was not indispensable, and the partition order was fair and consistent with the commissioners' recommendations (paras 19-20, 55, 63, 67).
Legal Issues
- Whether the New Mexico Partition Act permits the partitioning of leaseholds.
- Whether the Land Commissioner is an indispensable party to the partition of state grazing leases.
- Whether the trial court erred in modifying an interlocutory order.
- Whether the pooling of interests by the Sims Group was lawful.
- Whether the partition order was prejudicial to Aline Sims.
- Whether the trial court improperly modified the commissioners' recommendations.
- Whether the commissioners failed to follow the trial court's instructions.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues (para 1).
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Baca CJ., Ransom, Minzner, and McKinnon JJ. concurring):
Partition of Leaseholds: The court held that the New Mexico Partition Act does not abrogate the courts' equitable powers to partition leaseholds. Leaseholds, though personal property, can be partitioned in equity, and the Act does not expressly limit partition to real property (paras 20, 26-30).
Land Commissioner: The Land Commissioner was not an indispensable party because the partition action did not affect the state's interests as lessor or the legality of the leases. The action only severed the lessees' possessory rights (paras 52-57).
Interlocutory Order: The January 1991 order was interlocutory, and the trial court had the authority to modify it before final judgment. The modifications were proper and equitable (paras 58-59).
Pooling of Interests: The pooling of interests by the Sims Group was lawful and did not violate the Partition Act. The Act does not preclude co-tenants from combining their interests for partition purposes (paras 60-63).
Partition Order: The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's partition order. The commissioners' recommendations were fair, and the owelty award compensated Aline Sims for any deficiencies in her share (paras 64-65).
Commissioners' Report: The trial court's order was consistent with the commissioners' recommendations, including the creation of an easement for a water pipeline. The commissioners followed the court's instructions, and their descriptions of the property were adequate (paras 66-73).