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 involves a dispute over the partition and ownership of real property originally owned by a deceased couple as tenants in common. The daughter of the deceased mother filed a petition to quiet title, seek declaratory judgment, and partition the property after discovering a reverse mortgage taken by the father, who had remarried. The father had transferred the mother's share to himself, claiming she died intestate, and encumbered the property with a reverse mortgage. The daughter sought to resolve the ownership and debt responsibilities after both parents had passed away (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court granted the daughter's petition for partition by sale and denied the wife's motion to reconsider. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Wife): Argued that the evidence did not support the district court's findings, challenged the allocation of liability for the reverse mortgage, contested the procedures used for partition, and disputed the award of attorney fees. She also raised issues regarding res judicata and the appointment of the daughter as the personal representative (paras 1, 5).
- Appellee (Daughter): Sought to quiet title, obtain declaratory judgment, and partition the property. Argued that the father knew about the mother's will and that the reverse mortgage was improperly executed. She also sought the removal of the wife as the personal representative of the father's estate (paras 1, 4, 8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the evidence supported the district court's findings regarding the father's knowledge of the mother's will and the transfer of property (para 7).
- Whether the district court correctly allocated liability for the reverse mortgage debt (para 10).
- Whether the district court followed proper procedures for partitioning the property (para 16).
- Whether the district court's conclusions of law were consistent regarding rental liability (para 18).
- Whether the award of attorney fees to the daughter was justified (para 20).
- Whether the action was barred by res judicata (para 22).
Disposition
- The court reversed and remanded for clarification of the rental amounts owed by the wife but otherwise affirmed the district court's judgment (para 23).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Attrep and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding that the father knew about the mother's will, as testified by the children. The court rejected the wife's argument that the reverse mortgage was separate debt, as the district court properly allocated liability based on the wife's knowledge and use of the mortgage funds. The court concluded that the wife waived her right to strict adherence to statutory partition procedures by not seeking a valuation before trial. The court identified conflicting conclusions regarding rental liability and remanded for clarification. The award of attorney fees was upheld due to the wife's failure to administer the estate properly. The court found that the wife waived the res judicata defense by not raising it timely (paras 7-22).