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 reversionary clause in a 1935 deed that prohibited the use of the conveyed property for "immoral purposes" or the manufacture and/or sale of intoxicating liquors. The original 71.5-acre property was subdivided into multiple parcels, including a mobile home park owned by one defendant. Alleged drug trafficking and cohabitation by tenants occurred on this property, leading the plaintiff, a successor-in-interest to the reversionary clause, to claim that the clause was triggered, resulting in reversion of the entire property (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- Prieskorn v. Maloof, 1999-NMCA-132, 128 N.M. 226, 991 P.2d 511: The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the reversionary clause as a restraint on use rather than an impermissible restraint on alienation (para 3).
- District Court, August 2001: Summary judgment was granted to several individual property owners, concluding that the alleged conduct occurred only on the mobile home park property and that the reversionary clause did not apply to other parcels (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the reversionary clause was triggered by drug trafficking and cohabitation on the mobile home park property, resulting in reversion of the entire 71.5-acre tract (paras 4-5).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the alleged conduct occurred only on the mobile home park property, that the reversionary clause should be strictly construed to avoid forfeiture, and that the doctrine of partial reversion limited any reversion to the affected parcel (paras 5-7).
Legal Issues
- Whether the doctrine of partial reversion applies to limit reversion to the specific parcel where the alleged prohibited conduct occurred.
- Whether the alleged drug trafficking and cohabitation on the mobile home park property triggered the reversionary clause (paras 1, 7, 14).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders of summary judgment in favor of all defendants (para 21).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Fry and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Doctrine of Partial Reversion: The Court held that the doctrine of partial reversion applies, limiting reversion to the specific parcel where the alleged prohibited conduct occurred. The reversionary clause must be strictly construed to avoid forfeiture, and there was no evidence that the grantor intended for conduct on one parcel to trigger reversion of the entire property (paras 7-13).
Prieskorn Property: The Court found that the alleged drug trafficking and cohabitation did not trigger the reversionary clause. Drug trafficking, even if considered immoral, required evidence that the landowner had knowledge of and consented to the conduct, which was absent. Cohabitation, while possibly considered immoral in 1935, was no longer illegal and could not reasonably be interpreted as triggering the clause under modern standards. Additionally, the landowner's compliance with anti-discrimination laws precluded a finding of "immoral use" (paras 14-20).
Equitable Considerations: The Court emphasized that forfeiture is disfavored and should only occur when equitable factors support it. The punitive nature of the reversionary clause required a volitional act by the landowner, which was not present in this case (paras 15-16, 20).
The Court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to all defendants.