Title: Hart v. Northeastern NM Fair Ass'n

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

265 P.2d 341 (1953) 58 N.M. 9 HART et al. v. NORTHEASTERN N. M. FAIR ASS'N. No. 5669. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 8, 1953. Rehearing Denied January 26, 1954. *342 H. A. Kiker, Alfred P. Whittaker, Henry A. Kiker, Jr., Santa Fe, for appellants. Crampton, Robertson & Skinner, Raton, for appellee. SWOPE, District Judge. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to compel specific performance by the defendant of a condition subsequent set forth in a deed. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The trial court found the facts to be as follows: *345 The plaintiffs assign numerous errors principally on account of the trial court's action in adopting findings which were adverse to those submitted by them. However, the evidence supports the findings made by the trial court and its action in refusing to adopt the plaintiffs' theory of the case and their requested findings of fact, which it had covered by adverse findings, was not error. Libby v. De Baca, 51 N.M. 95, 179 P.2d 263. It should also be noted in connection with some of the errors assigned by the plaintiffs that the trial court is not required to make findings that are covered by findings already made in another form or that are argumentative or immaterial. See Cheek v. Radio Station KGFL, 47 N.M. 79, 135 P.2d 510; Sundt v. Tobin Quarries, 50 N.M. 254, 175 P.2d 684; Williams v. Selby, 37 N.M. 474, 24 P.2d 728; Lea County Fair Ass'n v. Elkan, 52 N.M. 250, 197 P.2d 228. The primary questions presented in this case are whether the defendant violated the forfeiture clause set forth in the deed by using the land for other than "fair purposes" and, if so, whether they are barred now from enforcing the clause because of their delay in complaining about the defendant's action and in standing by while the defendant spent thousands of dollars for improvements on the land, which cannot be removed now except at a tremendous loss. The plaintiffs' complaint is based primarily upon the fact that they desired what is commonly known as a county fair to be conducted on the premises. However, since the language used in the disputed clause was selected by the plaintiffs and inserted in the deed at their request and since the clause would, if enforced, work a forfeiture it must be construed strictly and most strongly against the plaintiffs. Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264, 101 P.2d 391; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545, 215 P. 825; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575, 51 N.E. 536; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134. In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than "fair purposes." Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has only conducted or permitted to be conducted on the land horse races, a circus, a rodeo, livestock exhibitions and sales, including a quarter horse and bull sale, except on the occasions when the Boy Scouts used it for some of their activities and an Indian dance, we believe that the trial court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had violated the clause by using the land for purposes other than "fair purposes." However, even assuming that the defendant had violated the forfeiture clause, the plaintiffs would still be barred from recovering in this action because of their unreasonable delay in complaining about the use being made of the property by the defendant during which period they knew that the defendant was spending large sums of money on permanent improvements. The evidence shows that the defendant acquired the Turner Tract in 1944 for the purpose of constructing a race track on it and otherwise using it for fair purposes. Later, it learned that, because of the contour of the land, a suitable race track could not be constructed on the Turner Tract alone and that it would be necessary to acquire the adjoining Morrow Tract in order to carry out its plans. The defendant then commenced negotiating with the plaintiffs and their agent, James Morrow, for the purchase of the Morrow Tract. The plaintiffs knew that the defendant intended to erect a race track on the land and did not object to it. However, they also wanted the defendant to conduct other activities on the land which are usually considered to be part of a fair. It was for this reason that they insisted that the forefeiture clause prepared by them be inserted in the deed, which conveyed the land to the defendant in 1945. Thereafter, the defendant constructed a race track, grandstand, barns, stables and other miscellaneous buildings and valuable improvements on both tracts and, in addition to the activities *346 mentioned above, it has been conducting horse races thereon each year since 1946. After the land was acquired by it, representatives from the nearby City of Springer contacted the defendant and pointed out that since the Colfax County Fair was being conducted in Springer, they desired the defendant to confine itself to conducting horse races and to drop any plans it had to conduct other fair activities in Raton which would compete with the Springer fair, which the defendant decided to do. Although the plaintiffs had knowledge of all these facts, they waited until June 1949, after the defendant had spent thousands of dollars on improving or placing improvements on the land, before they made any objection or claim that the forfeiture clause had been violated and demanded that the land be sold to them at a price of $25 per acre. It is well settled that where a person stands by and sees another committing an act which he feels infringes upon his rights and fails to assert his title or right, he will be estopped from afterwards asserting it. La Luz Community Ditch Co. v. Town of Alamogordo, 34 N.M. 127, 279 P. 72. Relief is withheld in such cases because it would be inequitable to grant it. O'Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U.S. 450, 22 S. Ct. 354, 46 L. Ed. 636; Winn v. Shugart, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 617. Furthermore, the equitable relief of specific performance will not be granted in a case where the result of the specific performance of the contract would be harsh, inequitable, oppressive or unconscionable. See Chaplin v. Korber Realty Inc., 29 N.M. 567, 224 P. 396; 65 A.L.R. at page 58 and 174 A.L.R. at page 713. The existence of laches is a question primarily addressed to the sound descretion of the trial court. Gardner v. Panama R. Co., 342 U.S. 29, 72 S. Ct. 12, 96 L. Ed. 31; Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S. Ct. 582, 90 L. Ed. 743. And, the courts generally apply the doctrine and withhold relief from those who have delayed the assertion of their claims for an unreasonable length of time. What is an unreasonable length of time depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. It is not the mere matter of lapse of time in all cases but the doctrine will be applied where the situation has changed during the neglectful repose in such a way that it would be inequitable to grant relief. See O'Brien v. Wheelock, supra. Also, if a party has knowledge of existing conditions and acquiesces in them, the opposing party is generally justified in assuming that such action constitutes an implied waiver of the right. Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103, 255 P.2d 311; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 178; 1 Simes Future Interests 307, Section 170. Under the facts of this case, the trial court was correct in denying the relief requested by the plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. COMPTON, LUJAN and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur. SADLER, C. J., not participating. McGHEE, Justice (dissenting). I do not believe the evidence in this case supports the decree denying relief to the appellants, and I therefore dissent.