This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
In 1941, the City of Santa Fe purchased land from the plaintiffs' predecessors for airport purposes, as stipulated in the deed. The deed included a condition subsequent allowing reversion of the property to the grantors if it ceased to be used for airport purposes. In 1961, the plaintiffs agreed to release reversionary rights for a portion of the land to allow the construction of a sewage plant. In the mid-1980s, the plaintiffs filed a quiet title action, claiming the city was not using portions of the land for airport purposes, seeking partial reversion (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The trial court allowed partial reversion of the airport land to the plaintiffs but denied reversion of the sewage plant property (paras 1, 7).
Parties' Submissions
- City of Santa Fe (Defendant-Appellant): Argued that the condition subsequent in the 1941 deed was not divisible, and partial reversion should not be permitted. Alternatively, the city claimed it was using all portions of the land for airport purposes. The city also contended that the plaintiffs failed to preserve certain issues for appeal (paras 8-10).
- Plaintiffs-Appellees: Asserted that the condition subsequent was divisible, allowing partial reversion of unused portions of the land. They argued that the city failed to preserve the issue of partial reversion and that evidence supported the trial court's findings. Plaintiffs also claimed reversion of portions of the sewage plant property not physically occupied by the plant (paras 8, 10-11, 28).
Legal Issues
- Was the condition subsequent in the 1941 deed divisible, allowing partial reversion of the property?
- Did the city adequately preserve the issue of partial reversion for appeal?
- Should the plaintiffs' claim for reversion of portions of the sewage plant property be upheld?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision allowing partial reversion of the airport land to the plaintiffs (para 32).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision denying reversion of the sewage plant property (para 32).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly and Chavez JJ. concurring):
The court held that the condition subsequent in the 1941 deed was not divisible, as the language of the deed did not explicitly allow for partial reversion. The court emphasized that conditions leading to forfeiture must be strictly construed to avoid forfeiture unless clearly intended by the parties. The broad language of the deed, which permitted use of the land "in connection with the maintenance or operation of an airport," supported the city's position that nonuse of portions of the land did not trigger reversion (paras 20-26).
The court also found that the city adequately preserved the issue of partial reversion for appeal, as its submissions and arguments sufficiently addressed the issue (paras 10-15).
Regarding the sewage plant property, the court concluded that the 1961 relinquishment agreement retained reversionary rights only for uses other than airport or sewage plant purposes. Nonuse of portions of the property did not constitute a violation of the condition, and the trial court correctly denied reversion (paras 28-30).