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 Defendant was evicted from her rental property for failing to pay rent. She argued that the Plaintiff, her landlord, had previously accepted partial payments during her financial difficulties, which she claimed constituted a waiver of the landlord's right to terminate the rental agreement. Additionally, the Defendant contended that she did not receive appropriate notice of the eviction and that the Plaintiff violated the law by refusing to provide a recent three-day notice to facilitate her obtaining rental assistance.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, allowing the eviction of the Defendant for nonpayment of rent.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant (Appellant): Argued that the Plaintiff's acceptance of partial rent payments constituted a waiver of the right to terminate the rental agreement under the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act (URLTA). She also claimed that the notice of eviction was not "appropriate" under the circumstances and that the Plaintiff violated the law by refusing to provide a recent three-day notice to allow her to seek rental assistance.
- Plaintiff (Appellee): Asserted that the Defendant failed to pay rent in full and that the eviction notice complied with statutory requirements. The Plaintiff argued that prior acceptance of partial payments did not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate the rental agreement.
Legal Issues
- Did the Plaintiff's acceptance of partial rent payments constitute a waiver of the right to terminate the rental agreement under the applicable law?
- Was the notice of eviction provided to the Defendant "appropriate" under the circumstances?
- Did the Plaintiff violate the law by refusing to provide a recent three-day notice to facilitate the Defendant's efforts to obtain rental assistance?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, upholding the eviction of the Defendant.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Fry JJ. concurring):
-
The Court found that the Plaintiff's prior acceptance of partial rent payments did not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate the rental agreement. The Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act (URLTA) cited by the Defendant was not adopted in New Mexico. Instead, the applicable law, the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA), allows for equitable considerations, which the District Court properly applied. The Plaintiff's prior forbearance did not, in equity, prevent him from requiring full payment in this instance.
-
Regarding the notice of eviction, the Court held that the notice complied with the statutory requirements under the UORRA. The Defendant's argument that the notice was not "appropriate" under the circumstances was rejected, as the statute itself defines what constitutes appropriate notice in cases of nonpayment of rent.
-
The Court also rejected the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff violated the law by refusing to provide a recent three-day notice. The Plaintiff had already provided the required notice, and there was no legal obligation to issue additional notices to accommodate the Defendant's attempts to secure third-party rental assistance.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the District Court's decision to evict the Defendant.