Title: Armijo v. via Development Corporation

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

466 P.2d 108 (1970) 81 N.M. 262 Theresa C. ARMIJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a New Mexico Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 8810. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 2, 1970. Rehearing Denied March 16, 1970. Motion for Leave to File Second Rehearing Denied March 31, 1970. Valdez & Coleman, Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant. Zinn & Donnell, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee. JAMES W. MUSGROVE, District Judge. Appellant originally filed suit in the District Court of Taos County seeking to set aside a deed issued to appellee by the New Mexico State Tax Commission claiming appellant had a prior right to repurchase the land in question but had been prevented from doing so by fraudulent acts of an employee of the Tax Commission. The case was tried to the court, and at the close of appellant's case a motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Appellant appeals. The following summary of facts found by the trial court was not challenged by *109 the appellant: The real estate which is the subject matter of this suit is in Toas County and was patented to Lloyd R. Gilliland in 1927. The land was sold by the Taos County Treasurer for nonpayment of the 1940 taxes and was transferred to the State of New Mexico by tax deed dated July 22, 1950. Upon expiration of the redemption period, the New Mexico State Tax Commission advertised the property for private sale. On December 5, 1962, appellee submitted a bid in the amount of $1,920.00 which was the highest bid received. Despite the pendency of appellee's bid, the Tax Commission, on December 31, 1962, issued a deed for the land to one Elmer N. Garcia, who was involved in numerous tax title scandals at the time. This deed was cancelled by court decree on May 12, 1965, and the land was transferred back to the Tax Commission by quitclaim deed from Garcia dated June 28, 1965 and recorded July 2, 1965. Appellant was well acquainted with Elmer N. Garcia, and he advised her that as a result of the litigation he was deeding the land back to the Tax Commission, and that she should get title to the land from the former owner, Gilliland, who lived in Oklahoma City, and that she should then redeem the tax title from the Tax Commission. Acting on these suggestions, appellant entered into a real estate contract on October 17, 1964 to purchase the land from Gilliland. Appellant received a warranty deed to the land from Gilliland dated June 22, 1965, which was recorded in Taos County on August 27, 1965. On August 30, 1965, appellee paid $1,920.00 to the Tax Commission, and on the following day the Tax Commission issued to appellee a deed to the land in question which was duly recorded. Subsequent to the issuance of the deed to appellee, appellant, on August 31, 1965, tendered an application to repurchase the land from the Tax Commission; but her application was rejected since the land had been sold. Since the above facts were not challenged they become facts in the reviewing court. Morton v. Great American Insurance Co., 77 N.M. 35, 419 P.2d 239 (1966); Morris v. Merchant, 77 N.M. 411, 423 P.2d 606 (1967). The following facts found by the trial court were challenged by the appellant who claimed that there was not substantial evidence to support such findings: From the foregoing facts the court concluded as a matter of law, among others, that plaintiff's oral inquiry of August 5, 1965 at the Tax Commission as to the status of the tax title to the property did not amount to the exercise of a first and prior right to repurchase under the statute in *110 force at the time; that plaintiff's application to repurchase the property as successor to the former owner was not timely, and her prior right to repurchase, if any, was extinguished because defendant's application to repurchase was received and accepted by the Commission before her application was made; that the plaintiff had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was fraud, either actual or constructive, on the part of the Tax Commission or its employees in advising the plaintiff on August 5, 1965 that the property was not subject to repurchase; and that the plaintiff had failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of regularity in the tax sale proceedings afforded by the tax deed issued to defendant. The trial court concluded that the legal rights of the parties were governed by § 76-740, N.M.S.A., 1941 Comp., as amended in 1943, and quoted a portion of this section. Appellant concedes that § 76-740, supra, is applicable. The applicability of the 1943 amendment is not an issue. Section 72-8-45, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., states in part: Section 76-740, supra, as amended in 1943 and as applicable here, stated in part (this is the same as it read prior to the 1943 amendment): Section 76-741, N.M.S.A., 1941 Comp., as amended in 1943, stated: The formal acceptance of the bid was delayed pending the legal determination that the sale to Garcia was void. Appellant argues that the appellee's bid was rejected by the acceptance and sale of the land to Garcia. This is without merit. As the sale to Garcia was a nullity, it would have no effect on the bid of the appellee. Appellant, in attacking the court's findings numbers 8 and 9, argues that her appearance at the office of the Tax Commission and her conversation with an employee of the Commission amounted to a valid offer to repurchase, or, if deficient in any respect, such deficiency was caused by the fraudulent conduct of the employee of the Tax Commission. With this we cannot agree. There were only two witnesses that testified concerning this aspect of the case, the appellant and Mrs. Stella T. Romero. It was for the trial judge as the trier of fact to determine the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of witnesses, and we will not interfere with the trial court's judgment in that respect. *111 Crumpacker v. Adams, 77 N.M. 633, 426 P.2d 781 (1967); Gruschus v. C.R. Davis Contracting Company, 75 N.M. 649, 409 P.2d 500 (1965). A review of the record discloses that the trial judge resolved any conflict in the testimony, and that his findings are supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, cannot be disturbed. This court in De Baca v. Perea, 52 N.M. 418, 200 P.2d 715 (1948), in interpreting § 76-740, supra, had this to say: The court also said: In Hargrove v. Lucas, 56 N.M. 323, 243 P.2d 623 (1952), the court dealing with the same statute stated the following: In addition to attacking certain of the findings of the trial court, appellant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to adopt certain of appellant's requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. This contention is without merit. Where the evidence is conflicting, the refusal to make findings and conclusions favorable to the unsuccessful party cannot be sustained as error. Gilon v. Franco, 77 N.M. 786, 427 P.2d 666 (1967); Varney v. Taylor, 77 N.M. 28, 419 P.2d 234 (1966). In passing on appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of appellant's case, the trial court had the right to weigh the evidence presented and determine whether a prima facie case had been established. Palmer v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 75 N.M. 737, 410 P.2d 956 (1966). The findings of the trial court were based on substantial evidence and well supported the legal conclusions drawn therefrom. The judgment dismissing the appellant's complaint will be affirmed. It is so ordered. MOISE, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur.