City of Santa Fe v. Velarde
| Citation | 90 N.M. 444,1977 NMSC 40,564 P.2d 1326 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11084 and 11091,s. 11084 and 11091 |
| Parties | The CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Benito VELARDE et al., Defendants-Appellants. The CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Victor ARMIJO et al., and Jose Benito Velarde, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
In November, 1973, the City of Santa Fe (City), in its corporate and proprietary capacities, brought suit in the district court of Santa Fe County to quiet title to certain property. The complaint named Jose Benito Velarde (Velarde) and several others as party defendants.
Velarde answered, pleading laches, limitations concerning lands granted by the United States, adverse possession for a period of ten years under color of title with payment of taxes and a general denial. Following Velarde's answer, the City moved for summary judgment against him upon the alternative grounds 'that Santa Fe County Cause No. 46215 is res judicata upon all issues in this case or that Santa Fe County Cause No. 46215 collaterally estops the Defendant Jose Benito Velarde from defending this action.'
Cause No. 46215 on the docket of the Santa Fe County District Court (first case) was an action previously filed by Velarde and his wife, claiming to be the owners in fee simple and in actual possession of certain described lands, which lands for all practical purposes are the same as the land involved in the suits to quiet title which are the subject matter of this appeal. It appears that in the first case Velarde had sought a quitclaim deed to the lands in question from the City of Santa Fe under a patent issued by the United States of America to the City on February 16, 1901, pursuant to the act of Congress approved on April 9, 1900, entitled 'an Act to settle the Title to Real Estate in the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico.' Under the Act, the City was granted the land 'in Trust for the benefit of all persons claiming title to their individual holdings of real estate . . . by actual possession or under color of title for the period of ten years prior to the passage' of the legislation and further ordered 'to execute proper deeds of quitclaim to the persons entitled thereto.' Velarde's application for such a deed apparently having been previously turned down without a hearing, he alleged in the first case among other things that the Act and the city ordinance implementing it did not provide for an adequate opportunity to be heard, were subject to unequal enforcement, and thus should be declared unconstitutional. The suit further alleged that the City had a conflict of interest with respect to appellant inasmuch as the land was being claimed by the City both in its proprietary and fiduciary capacities, and that the Mayor, Clerk, and other City agents had refused appellant's application for a quitclaim deed without properly processing it. The City filed a motion to dismiss challenging (1) the court's jurisdiction, (2) plaintiffs' capacity to sue, (3) the sufficiency of the claim stated as a subject for relief, (4) the lack of an (unnamed) indispensable party, and (5) the claim that plaintiffs were taking fatally inconsistent positions in the same case. The district court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice unless Velarde, within twenty days, amended his complaint to seek mandamus or quiet title or both. The order specifically recited that by stipulation of the parties 'the Complaint on file herein does not assert on behalf of plaintiffs a Quiet Title action against the Defendant. . . .' Velarde did not avail himself of the leave to amend and the first case stood dismissed.
This appeal is taken from the district court's order granting the City's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel predicated upon the order dismissing the first case with prejudice. The cases are docketed as Nos. 11084 and 11091 on the docket of this court and the legal issues in both cases being identical in all respects, the court has considered them together.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel by judgment involve different and distinct principles. Res judicata in its proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silva v. State
...issues and facts shown to have been actually and necessarily determined in the previous litigation. City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 90 N.M. 444, 446, 564 P.2d 1326, 1328 (1977). Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of ultimate facts or issues actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit. ......
-
Mayer v. Bernalillo Cnty., CIV 18-0666 JB\SCY
...of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only to final judgments."). See also City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 1977-NMSC-040, ¶ 9, 564P.2d 1326, 1328 (asserting that application of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel requires a prior final decision). If the party invoking ......
-
Gallegos v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
...of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only to final judgments.”). See also City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 1977-NMSC-040, ¶ 9, 564 P.2d 1326, 1328 (asserting that application of the doctrines of res or collateral estoppel requires a prior final decision). If the party invoking the doct......
-
Thornton v. The Kroger Co.
...of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only to final judgments.”). See also City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 1977-NMSC-040, ¶ 9, 564 P.2d 1326, 1328 (asserting that application of the doctrines of res or collateral estoppel requires a prior final decision). If the party invoking the doct......