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 Plaintiffs constructed a $1,250,000 truck stop, store, and travel center in Hobbs, New Mexico. After completion, it was discovered that a portion of the facility encroached 58 feet onto the Defendant's property, constituting approximately 9% of the Defendant's usable land. The encroachment resulted from reliance on a mistaken survey. The Plaintiffs attempted to purchase or exchange land with the Defendant to resolve the issue, but negotiations failed (paras 1-9).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: The trial court ordered the Defendant to convey the encroached land to the Plaintiffs for $14,700 or exchange it for a similar strip of land. The Defendant's counterclaim for ejectment and quiet title was denied (paras 2-3, 10-11).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court erred in applying the "relative hardship" doctrine, denying ejectment, and ordering the conveyance of a substantial portion of his land. Claimed the encroachment was not minimal and that the Plaintiffs' failure to provide prior surveys contributed to the error (paras 3, 12-13, 19).
- Appellees (Plaintiffs): Contended that the encroachment was unintentional and removal would cause disproportionate harm to their business. They argued that the trial court's equitable remedy was fair and justified under the circumstances (paras 10-11, 27).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in applying the "relative hardship" doctrine to deny ejectment and quiet title to the Defendant (para 3).
- Whether the trial court's equitable remedy of ordering the Defendant to convey the encroached land was appropriate (para 3).
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that the encroachment resulted from a mutually mistaken state of mind (para 3).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, ordering the removal of the encroachment (paras 28-30).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Alarid and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the "relative hardship" doctrine. The encroachment was significant, covering 58 feet and 9% of the Defendant's usable land, and could not be considered minimal or de minimis. Compelling the Defendant to convey the land amounted to a private eminent domain, which is impermissible. The Court emphasized that the Defendant did not contribute to the encroachment and was entitled to ejectment as a remedy (paras 19-24).
The Court also rejected the trial court's finding of a "mutually mistaken state of mind," as there was no evidence that the Defendant contributed to or condoned the encroachment. The Plaintiffs' argument of economic waste was insufficient to justify the forced conveyance, as the Defendant's property rights outweighed the Plaintiffs' financial interests. The Court concluded that the proper remedy was removal of the encroachment, leaving the Plaintiffs to negotiate with the Defendant if they wished to avoid dismantling their structure (paras 26-28).