AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 1979, a parcel of land was divided into fifteen sections by Aaron Roybal and his wife, Veronica, and conveyed to their children with restrictive deeds limiting sales to Aaron's heirs. The deeds also granted shared water rights to a well on Lot 13, owned by one of the children. A dispute arose when Lot 15, originally owned by Aaron's son Luciano, was conveyed to Margie Lujan de la Fuente, a non-heir, without explicit mention of water rights in her deed. Plaintiffs, Aaron's heirs, sought to prevent Defendant from using the well water (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court: Granted summary judgment to Defendant, holding that she had a non-exclusive right to use the well water on Lot 13 by virtue of her deed (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that Defendant was not entitled to water rights as her deed did not expressly convey such rights and because she was not an heir of Aaron Roybal. They also contended that the restriction limiting water rights to heirs was enforceable (paras 7, 16).
• Defendant-Appellee: Claimed water rights were appurtenant to the land and conveyed with her deed, despite the lack of express language. She also argued that the restriction on water rights was an unenforceable restraint on alienation and that res judicata barred Plaintiffs' claims based on a prior judgment in a related case (paras 6, 16, 22).

Legal Issues

• Whether water rights were conveyed to Defendant despite the absence of express language in her deed.
• Whether the restriction limiting water rights to Aaron's heirs constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
• Whether the doctrine of res judicata barred Plaintiffs' claims.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings (paras 1, 31).

Reasons

Per Robles J. (Bustamante and Garcia JJ. concurring):

• Water Rights by Appurtenancy: The Court held that under New Mexico law, water rights are not automatically appurtenant to land unless used for irrigation. Since Defendant's deed was silent on water rights and there was no evidence of prior irrigation use, the water rights were not conveyed to her (paras 10-12, 17).
• Res Judicata: The Court rejected Defendant's res judicata argument, finding that the prior case (Lujan v. Roybal) involved different parties, facts, and legal issues. Specifically, the prior case concerned a deed that expressly included water rights and involved an heir of Aaron, unlike the present case (paras 22-27).
• Restraint on Alienation: The Court declined to address whether the restriction limiting water rights to heirs was an unreasonable restraint on alienation, as Defendant's deed did not include water rights, rendering the issue moot (para 28).
• Remand: The Court remanded the case to allow the district court to consider unresolved factual issues, including whether the land was used for irrigation and whether statutory permitting procedures were followed (paras 29-30).