1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Apr il 13, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 390 5 IL A BETH HANCOCK, 6 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll an t, 7 v

. 8 RAY NICOLE Y, 9 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF QU AYCO UN TY 11 Albe rt J. Mitc hell, Jr., Distr ict Judge 12 Care n I. Friedm an 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 fo r Appe llant 15 Sch ut te Law Offic e, LLC 16 D ona ld S chutt e 17 Tuc um cari , NM 18 for Appellee20 See at ta ch m en t 1

. 1 1 OPIN ION 2 BUS TAM AN TE, Judge. 3 { 1} Plaintiff Ila

Beth H ancock appeals the district c ourt’ s order in which it applied 4 the doc tr ine of ac qui es ce nc e to c onc lud e tha t the bou ndary be tw ee n he r pr ope rty

a nd 5 Ray Nic oley ’ s property

wa s m arked by

the fence line instead of the sur v eyed 6 boun dary

because th e p ar t ies had long treate d the fence line as the boundary . I n 7 ef fe ct , the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d th e tr an sf er of som e of Ha nc oc k’ s pr ope rty to 8 Nico le y . W e rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} Pl ai nt iff

Ila Bet h Han co ck own ed two pa rcel s of lan d in Qua y Co un ty. The two 11 pa rc el s lay to the w es t and s outh of D ef en da nt R ay

N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty . F or

e as e of 1 12 refe ren ce, we ca ll H a n c o c k ’s pa rcel s “ th e wes t p arce l” an d “ th e so ut h p arce l.” 13 Hancock co-owned the south p arce l with her nephew , W .A

. Hancock (the nephew). 1 4 Th e we s t a n ds o u t h p a r c e l s met a tt h e s o u t h w e s tc o rn e r o f Ni c o l e y’s p r o p e rt y. 15 H an co ck

pe rm itt ed

he r ca ttl e to cr oss the sou thw es t c or ne r of N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty

to 16 reac h a win dm il l and well on th e so ut h p arce l an d h addo ne so for“ atlea st 65 y ears .” 17 { 3} In 2006, Hancock f iled a com

plaint against Nicoley alleging th at N icoley had 18 rem oved and relocated a portion of the fence betw ee n their properties at the corner 19 suc h th at

he r ca ttl e co uld

no l onge r pa ss f

ro m the w es t par ce l to the south parc el

. T he18 N ic ole y dis put ed tha t he re m ove d the old fe nc e. H e m ai nta ine d tha t a ft er the 2 19 fe nc e fe ll dow n, he re pla ce d the old f en ce w ithane w one on the sur ve y ed pr ope rty 20 li ne . 3 1 the or y of Han co ck ’s c om

pla int w as tha t the pr ev iou s lo ca tio n of the f en ce a t the 2 corner had becom e the boun dary betwee n the parties’ properties b y ac quiescence. 3 “ T h e d o c t r i n e o f a c qu i e s c e n c e i s p r i n c i p a l l y b a s e d o n a n a g r e e m e n t , e x p r e s se d or 4 im pli ed , of a dj oin ing landowne rs , w he re by the y r ec ogni ze or

a cquie sc e in a

c er ta in 5 line as the true bound ary of their properties. ” Ston e v. Rhodes , 19 88 -NMCA- 02 4, ¶ 6 6, 107 N

. M. 96, 752 P

. 2d 1 112. “ G en er al ly , in or de r to pre va il unde r the doc tr ine of 7 ac qui es ce nc e, aparty

m ust sho w by c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e tha t he a nd h is 8 ne ig hb orreco gn iz e a p hysic al bo un da ry as th e true di vi di ng li ne of t he ir p ro pe rty.” 9 Id

. U nde r the doc tr ine , “ [t ] he ‘ boun da ry ’ is giv ensuc h c re de nc e tha t aft er ac er ta in 10 pe ri od o f tim e ha s la pse d, in the int er es t of

pe ace and quie t, thi s di vid ing li ne is 11 recognized as the true boundary divid ing th e properties. ” Id

. 12 { 4} Ba se d onthi s th eo ry , the c om pla int al le ge d tha t N ic ole y ha d tr es pa sse d and 13 encroached on Hancock’ s p ro p er t y by m ovin g the fence and that such acts had 2 14 ca use d dam ag es . In ad dit ion , the co m pla int re que ste d an adj udi ca tio n of bou ndari es . 15 Finally

and alternatively , Hancock r equested that she either be declar ed the fee owner 16 of the co rn er by adve rs e poss es sio n or grante d a pre sc ri pti ve ea se m en t for use of the 17 co rn er.4

1 { 5} In his answer, Nic oley “ agree[ d] that an adj udication of the bound ary together 2 wit h ri gh ts of i ng res s an d e gr es s b et ween th e p art ie s s ho ul d b e de te rm in ed .” He 3 de nie d th at

H an co ck ha d po sse ssi on o f the c or ne r by a dve rs e poss es sio n or

he ld a 4 prescriptive easem ent and denied H ancock’ s assertions as to the fe nce lines. N icoley 5 al so c ount er cl ai m ed , a lle gin g th at he he ld a

pr es cr ipt iv e eas em en t a t the northe as t 6 co rn er o f th e wes t p arce l. Th e co un te rcl ai m is no t at is su e in th is ap pe al

. 7 { 6} At a bench trial o n January 5, 20 10, Hancock presented her own testim ony as 8 we ll as t estim ony by her nephew and her brother. Hancock testified that the fence that 9 Nicoley

had rem oved had been in th e corner for “ at least [sixty -five] y ears. ” N icoley 10 adm itted a 1983 retra cem en t survey of the parties’ properties. T his su rvey showed 11 tha t the fe nc e lin e be tw ee n the south pa rc el an d N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty w as sou th o f the 12 su rv ey edbo un da ry

be twee n t he pro pe rti es . 13 { 7} A ft er

H an co ck r es te d he r ca se , N ic ole y m ove d f or dis m iss al of

a ll co unt s 14 ex ce pt f

or the pr es cr ipt ive e as em ent c la im

. A s to the c la im f or a dj udi ca tio n of 15 boun daries, Nicoley argued specifically that the claim

m ust be dis m issed for failure 16 to join an indisp ensable party , H ancock’ s nephew a nd co-owner. The district court 17 de nie d th e m oti on a s to the tr es pa ss an d en cr oa ch m en t cl ai m s, an d sta te d tha t i t w oul d 18 dis m iss the adve rs e poss es sio n cla im

. It the n stat ed tha t the c la im

f or a dj udi ca tio n of 19 boun da ri es w oul d be dis m iss ed be ca use “ w e don’ t have ind isp en sa bl e p ar t i e s b e ca use5

1 [the nephew] , the c o-owner of the [so u t h parce l,] hasn’ t been j oined.” T he district 2 court reiter ated afte r closing argum ents that it would no t add re ss the bou ndary 3 be tw ee n th e south parc el a nd N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty oth er than a t the c or

ne r be ca use the 4 ap pr op ri at e pa rt ie s w er e not j oin ed , statin g, “ Wha t’ s inf ro nt o f m e is f

igu ri ng o ut 5 how y ou-all are going to get along on thi s corner. ” N one of the dism issals were ever 6 m em or ia li zed in writ in g. 7 { 8} H an co ck

a nd N ic ole y

both su

bm itt ed req ueste d f

ind ing s of

f ac t and 8 co nc lus ion s of

law a ft er the be nc h tr ia l. H an co ck

r eque ste d f

ind ing s tha t “ [H an co ck ] 9 and [Nic oley ] have m

utually recognized, respected and hono red th e fe nces betwe en 10 them as bound ary

lines since [Nic oley ] purchased his tract in 1 9 9 3 ,” an d that 11 “ the

. . . f

en ce li ne s be tween th e [s outh parc el a nd N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty ] a re the 12 boun da ry

f en ce s a t the loc at ion s w he re the f en ce s have his tor ic al ly

e xis te d. ” Sh e al so 13 re que ste d ac onc lus ionof law tha t “ [t] he fe nc e lin es be tw ee n [ H an co ck ’ s] a nd 14 [N icoley ’ s] properties are boun dary lines.” 15 { 9} N ic ole y

r eque ste d af

ind ing tha t the f

en ce li ne be tw ee n th e south parc el a nd h is 16 pr ope rty w as “ ac tua lly [f ive ] fe et south of the c om

m on [ sur ve y ed ] bou ndary . ” H e al so 17 re que ste d ac onc lus ionof law tha t “ [H an co ck ] f

ai le d to show a bo undary by 18 acquiescence. ”6

1 { 10} N ine m onths af

te r the be nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed ale tte r ru lin g. I n th e 2 le tte r, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed tha t both H an co ck an d N ic ole y he ld e as em en ts a cr oss 3 each other’ s property . T he letter did not address the location of the boun dary betwee n 4 th e so ut h p arce l an d Ni co le y ’s pro pe rty. 5 { 11} Si x m onths l at er , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a sta tus co nf er en ce an d sta te d th at

it s 6 final j udgm ent would be issued within a w eek. At this conference , H ancock offer ed 7 to p ro vid e the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithasur ve y she did of he r la nd. T he j udge state d he did 8 not th ink th e H ancock’ s survey would “ have that m

uch effe ct on the case. ” A noth er 9 status conference w as held nine m onth s later, two y ears a fter the tr i al

. The dist rict 10 co urt st at ed tha t the fi na l j udgm en t wo uld be iss ue d shortly the re af te r. A thi rd

status 11 co nf eren ce o ccu rred sev en m on th s l at er, b ut on ly N ic ol ey was p res en t. 12 { 12} A f

ourth statu s conference occurre d in Dece m ber 2012, nearly

three y ears a fter 13 trial. At this conference , Hancock pointed out that the fe nce betwe en her south parcel 14 an d N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty w as not on the sur

ve y ed pr ope rty lin e. H an co ck state d, “ the 15 oth er iss ue w hic h w as not

be fo re the co ur t is tha t the [ boun da ry be tw ee n th e south 16 pa rc el a nd N ic ol ey ’s pr ope rty ] w as of f sig nif ic an tly f ro m w ha t the pr ope rty

li ne is, 17 all the way down. And the court didn ’ t rule o n that. T hat’ s not so m ething th at w e’ re 18 he re f or . ” N ic ole y

a gr ee d th at

the issue of

the bou ndary

“ w as a n is sue tha t r ea lly 19 was n’t b efo re t he co ur t” an d t h at“ [i]t was on th e su rv ey , bu t i t was n’t an is su e . . .7

1 any one had asked the court to rule on, concerning w hether or not . .

. Nicoley owned 2 th atpa rti cu la r pi ece o f la nd .” The di st ric t co ur t al so ap pe ared to ag ree an d s ta te d, “ we 3 [are ] focusing really

only on the corner, ” an d that “ if w e have to take up [the fence 4 lin e be tw ee n th e south parc el a nd N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty ] , c ouns el , I ’l l l et y ou a ll ta lk 5 ab out w he the r tha t ne ed s to be ase pa rate law sui t, or wh et he r it sim ply ne ed s to be 6 [an] am ended pleading in this lawsuit.” W e infer from these com m ents by the parties 7 an d th e distri ct co urt tha t, ev en if the dis tr ic t cour t’ s dism iss al of

the a dj udi ca tio n of 8 boun daries claim wa s not m em orialized in wr iting after the bench trial, all invol ved 9 ag re ed as la te as D ec em be r 2012 tha t the loc at ion of the boun da ry lin e be tw ee n th e 10 south parc el a nd N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty w as no long er be fo re the co urt, ex ce pt for a s it 11 pe rta in edto Hanc oc k’s p as sa ge th ro ug h t he co nt es te d c or ne r. 12 { 13} T his und er standi ng is bolst er ed by subs eque nt e ve nts

. T enday s a ft er thi s st at us 13 conference , the district court sent a letter to the parties in which it stated that Hancock 14 ha d “ ch ose [n ] not

to pur sue ” ana ct ion re la te d to the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n th e fe nc e lin e 15 an d the sur

ve y ed boun da ry . It al so ex pr es se d co nc er n tha t a ne w iss ue was b eing 16 rai se d l on g a fte r th e b en ch tri al on th e m eri ts

. 17 As w e all know, the legal bound ary betwee n two p roperties can be either 18 the sur

ve y li ne , the li ne ag re ed to by the pa rt ie s, or the li ne or de re d by 19 the [ c] ourt. I a m gr ea tly co nc er

ne d that , fr an kly , y ears a ft er w ha t w e al l 20 be lie ve d w as the f ina l [ m ] er its [ h] eari ng, o ne party noww an ts t o 21 intro duc e ev ide nc e tha t w as ea sil y dis co ve ra ble pr ior to th e [m ] er its8

1 [h ] eari ng, a nd a lso r ai se a ddi tio na l i ssu es t ha t m ay a rg uably go t o th e 2 m eri ts th atwere al read y tri ed

. 3 The le tter concluded with an ins t ru ct i on to Hancock to “ file an appropriate w ritten 4 mo t i o n w i t h a su pp or ti ng bri ef” i f sh e wis he d t o “ ex pa nd th e sc op e o f li ti ga ti on .” 5 Han co ckdi d n ot do so . 6 { 14} A f

ina l sta tus co nf

er en ce w as he ld i n January 201 3. F ina lly , in O ct obe r 2013 , 7 j ust sh y

of four y ears a fter tr ial, the dist rict cou rt is sued its final judgm ent. Contrar y 8 to the le tter de ci sio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d bo th p ar tie s’ e as em en t c la im s. Init s 9 findi ng s of

f a c t , t he d i str i c tc ourta c c e pt e d H a nc oc k’ s r e qu e st e d f i nd i ng t hat 10 “ [H an co ck ] a nd [ N ic ole y ] ha ve m utu al ly r ec ogni ze d, r es pe ct ed [, ] a nd honor ed the 11 fen ces be twee n t he m

as b ou nd ary li ne s s in ce [Ni co le y ] pu rch as edhi s tra ct in 19 93 .” 12 A lth oughthe dis tric t c ourt a lso e ch oe d N ic ole y ’ s r eque ste d f ind ing tha t “ the 13 bo un da ry

fen ce lin e ru nn in g eas t an d wes t i s ac tu al ly sou th of t he leg al de sc rip ti on ,” 14 it found th at “ [H ancock] established by clear and convin cing e vidence that the fence 15 lin e on the sou the rnsid e of [N ic ole y ’ s] pr ope rty is the le ga l boundary lin e as it is l ong 16 es ta bli she d and r ec ogni ze d by lon g r ec ogni tio n of

abut tin g ow ne rs .” Inadr aw ing 17 at ta ch ed

to the f ina l j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at , f ro m the c or ne r to a p oin t 18 200 feet east of the cor ner, the boun dary betwee n the properties is the “ legal boun dary 19 by de ed a nd s urve y . ” H ow ev er , it al so note d th at f ro m tha t po int

to the e as te rne dge 20 of Hanc oc k’s p ro pe rty, the “ [f]enc e = l eg al b o u n d ary by acqu ie ns cen ce [s ic ]. ” T he9

1 fina l j udgm en t st at ed

tha t “ [H an co ck ’ s] r eque st tha t the f en ce li ne a t the sou th s ide 2 of [N icoley ’ s property ] is the legal boun dary , except for on the we st two hundred feet 3 of th atfen ce l in e[,] is g ran te d.” The district court also stat ed that “ [s] ince evidence 4 presented to the [district c] ourt was that th e fe nce line is south of the survey 5 boun da ry , . . . [N ic ole y ] sha ll ha ve pr ep ar ed a le ga lly suf fi ci en t sur

ve y se tti ng f orth 6 the de sc ri pti on o f the pr ope rty ly ing be tw ee n th e fe nc e an d th e south bo undary of the 7 no rth eas t q ua rte r [o f Han co ck ’s pro pe rty] wit hi n s ix ty day s.” The j udgm ent pe r m i tted 8 H a n c o c kt h i rt y d a ys t o o b je c tt o t h e s u rv e y. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco ur t s ta te d, 9 A s t o th e w es t tw o hu ndr ed f ee t, the part ie s sh al l e ac h be ha lf 1 0 r e s p o n s i b l e f

o r t h e c o s t [ s ] o f

as u rv e y t o p r o p e r l y l o c a t e t h e b o u n d a ry, 11 an d to er ec t a fe nc e al ong the w es t tw o hu ndr ed f ee t. A t the e nd o f the 12 tw o hu ndr ed

f ee t ther e shou ld b e a nin ety de gr ee j og t o th e ex ist ing 13 fen ce l in e. 14 { 15} Insum

m ar y , both the pa rt ie s an d the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev er se d di re ct ionm ult ipl e 15 tim es thr ough out

thi s pr otr ac te d li tigat ion

. F or ins tanc e, H an co ck

r eque ste d th e 16 ad j udi ca tio n of

bou ndari es in he r co m

pla int , te sti fi ed

tha t the f

en ce lin es we re the 17 proper bound aries by

acquiescence, and requested finding s of fact that the fence lines 18 m arked the bound aries of her property . L ater, she argued that the location of the fence 19 lin es w as not

a t i ssu e ex ce pt a t the dis put ed co rn er an d that the dis tr ic t cour t sh oul d 20 not decide the issu e. Even though she requested finding s of fac t that the district court 21 adopted, she now argues that the district court erre d in do ing so . S im ilarly , N icoley10

1 m ove d f

or dis m iss al of the ad

j udi ca tio n of

bou ndari es c la im

a t tri al a nd r eque ste d a 2 co nc lus ionof

law tha t H an co ck

ha d f ai le d to pr ove tha t the f

en ce li ne s w er e the 3 boun da ry

by a cquie sc en ce . O n a

ppe al , he a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion 4 to the co ntr ar

y w as co rr ec t an d tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the c la im —a t hi s 5 re que st—

w as inc or re ct

. Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ir st d ism iss ed

the a dj udi ca tio n of 6 boun da ries c la im , the n a cc ep te d bo th H an co ck ’ s r eque ste d f ind ing of f ac t and 7 conclusio n of law as to the fence lines, and ultim ately d ec i d ed an issue it stated 8 rep eat ed ly it wo ul d n ot de ci de

. 9 DISC US SION 10 { 17} H an co ck

appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n a s to the boun da ry be tw ee n th e 11 south parce l and Nicoley ’ s land. She does not appeal the district c ourt’ s decisions as 12 to th e eas em en ts cla im edby eith er p art y . 13 { 18} W e conclude that the final j udgm ent m ust be reversed and the m atter r em anded 14 fo r se ve ra l r ea sons . F ir st, the d is tric t c ourt e rr ed in ad dr es sin g th e iss ue of the 15 boun da ry

be tw ee n th e pr ope rt ie s be y ond w ha t wa s nec es sary to re sol ve the dis put e 16 ove r the c or

ne r af te r (1 ) or de ri ng the bou ndary a djud ic at io n cla im

dis m iss ed , ( 2) 17 hol din g ahe ar ing in w hic h a ll ag re ed tha t i t w as not

be fo re the co ur t, and

( 3) 18 adm oni shi ng H an co ck f or r ai sin g it a ft er the be nc h tr ia l and sta tin g tha t he r ple ad ing s 19 would have to be am ended before the court would address it. It is true that the district11

1 court’ s oral dism issal of Hancock’ s adjudica t i o n of bound aries cla im wa s never 2 m e m or ialized in wr iting , and that, consequentl y , the district court could have changed 3 it s m in d a s t o t he di sm is sa l a t a ny tim e p rio r to jud gm en t. Sta te v . M orr is , 196 1- 4 N MS C- 120, ¶

5, 69 N

. M. 89, 364 P

. 2d 348 (“ A n or al ru lin g by the tr ia l j udge is not 5 a final j udgm ent. I t is m erely evidence of w hat the court had decided to do b ut he can 6 ch an ge suc h r

uli ng a t any

ti m e be fo re the e ntr

y of a fi na l j udgm en t. ”) ; see Ru le 1- 058 7 NM RA (p ro v i d i n g fo r e n t ry o f o rd er s fo l l o wi n g an n o u n c e me n to f a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 8 decisions ). Ne vertheless, a s a practica l m att er , t h e p arties w ere at least som ew hat 9 en tit le d to r el y

on the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ep ea te d a sse rt ion s a t the be nch trial tha t i t 1 0 w o u l d n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e y w e r e r e i n f o r c edthr ough 11 su bs eq ue nt ex pl ic it st at em en ts th atth e is su e wou ld no t b e d eci de d. 12 { 18} Se co nd, a lth oughit appare ntl y

de te rm ine d th at Han co ck ’ s ne phe w w as a 13 necessary

party , the district c ourt did not conduct a com plete analy sis of joinder under 14 Ru le 1- 019 N MR

A

. Und er Ru le 1- 019( A ), “ [a ] pe rs on w ho i s su bj ec t t o se rv ic e of 15 process shall be j oined as a party in the action if[] (1) in his absence com plete relief 16 cannot

be a cc or de d a m ong tho se a lr ea dy pa rt ie s; o r (2 ) he c la im s an in te re st r el at ing 17 to the sub

j ec t of the a ct ion ” an d r es olu tio n of the a ct ionw ith out him “ m ay . . . im pa ir 18 or im pe de his ab ili ty to pr ote ct tha t int er es t[

. ] ” If the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine s th at a 19 pa rty shou ld be j oin ed unde r Ru le 1- 019( A ), it shou ld o rd er tha t party

to be j oin ed

.12

1 Srad er v . V erant , 199 8- N MS C- 025, ¶ 19, 125 N

. M. 521, 964 P. 2d 82 (“ If j oin de r is 2 not precluded byj uri sdiction al barrie rs, j oind er is norm ally fea sible, and the court 3 or de rs j oin de r, thu s e ndi ng the iss ue . ” (f ootnot e om itt ed )) ; see Ru le 1- 019( A )( 2) (b ) 4 (“ If he ha s no t be enso j oin ed, the c ourt shal l order that he be m ade a party .” ) 5 (E m phasis add ed.) If the party ca n n o t b e j oined, the district court next exam ines 6 “ w he the r ‘ in equ ity an d good cons ci en ce ’ tha t party is i ndi spe nsa ble to the li tig at ion

. 7 If the party is indispensable, the court dism isses the case for nonj oind er. ” G all eg os 8 v. P ue blo of

T es uque , 200 2- N MS C- 012, ¶ 39, 132 N

. M. 207 , 46 P

. 3d 6 68 ( ci ta tio n 9 om itt ed ); see Ru le 1- 019( B) (n oti ng an ac tio n should be dis m iss ed if the abse nt p ar ty 10 is in di sp en sa bl e). 11 { 19} Gen eral ly, in a bo un da ry di sp ut e, 12 [t] he owners of the adj oinin g lands and al l p er sons having a direct 13 int eres t in the r es ult of apr oc ee din g, le ga l or

e qui ta ble , to es ta

bli sh 14 boun daries ar e . . . nec essary or indisp ensable parties, for otherw ise they 15 ar e not

bou nd by an y de te rm ina tio n as to the loc at ion of the bou ndari es , 16 an d ti tle to the land be tw ee n [the ] pla int if f an d [ the ] de fe ndant and the 17 determ ination of a com m on bo undary

line cannot be establish ed 18 otherwise. 19 11 C.J.S. Boundari es § 19 5 ( 2016 ) (f ootnot es om itt ed ); se e Sta te ex r el . Kin g v. UU 20 B ar R anc h L td. P ’s hip , 200 9- N MS C- 010, ¶ ¶ 48- 49, 145 N

. M. 769 , 205 P

. 3d 8 16 21 (n oti ng i n di ct a the “ ind isp en sa ble [] pa rty doc tr ine ” an d st at ing tha t “ [a ] s am at te r of 22 law , it w oul d appe ar inc ontro ve rt ibl e tha t the bou ndary li ne be tw ee n th e Ranc h and13

1 the state lands co uld

not ha ve be enr ee sta

bli she d w ith out , a t the ve ry le as t, the 2 pr es en ce in co urt of

the state a ge nc ie s w hic h are the tr ust ee s of tho se ve ry

state 3 lands” ). H ow ev er , the a sse ssm en t of ne ce ssi ty an d in dis pe nsa bil ity is “ he av ily 4 influenced by the facts and circ um stances of eac h case. ” G all eg os , 200 2- N MS C- 012, 5 ¶ 42 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). H er e, it w oul d a ppe ar f ro m the 6 district court’ s oral dism issal of the adjudication of boun daries claim that it concluded 7 that Hancock’ s nephew w as a nece ssary party , that he could not be j oined, and that 8 th e cl ai m co ul d no t “ in eq ui ty andgo od co ns ci en ce” g o fo rward wit ho ut hi m . Id

. ¶ 39 9 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). H owever , ther e is no ev i d ence that 10 the dis tr ic t co ur t as se sse d w he the r the ne phe w c oul d be j oin ed , or w he the r the sui t 11 co ul d pr oc eed in hi s ab se nc e. See H all v . R ey nolds , 60 S o. 3d 9 27, 931 -3 2 ( A la

. Ci v. 12 App. 2 0 1 0 ) (hol ding that wher e heirs shared ow nership of a property they we re “ at 13 le as t ne ce ssary pa rt ie s” und er Ru le 19( a) a nd r em an din g to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o 14 de te rm ine w he the r the he ir s c oul d be j oin ed , or if the act ion co uld

pr oc ee d inthe ir 15 absence). Under these circum stances, the district c ourt’ s judgm ent m ust be reversed 16 an d th e m at te r re m ande d f or de te rm ina tio n of

w he the r the ne phe w m ay be j oin ed

. 17 H all , 60 S o. 3d a t 93 1- 32

. 18 { 20} N ic ole y

poi nts to se ve ra l c a s e s a d dr e s s i n g p r ope rty dis put es in w hic h th e co urts 19 ha ve he ld th atco -te na nt s ar e n ot ne ces sa ry pa rti es . Se e, e . g. , Madri d v. B orr eg o ,14

1 1950 -N MS C- 043, ¶

6, 54 N.M. 276, 221 P

. 2d 1 058; De Be rgere v. Chaves , 190 8- 2 NMSC -0 06 , ¶ 11 , 14 N.M. 35 2, 9 3 P . 76 2. D e B er ge re i s i n ap p o s i t e b e c au se it 3 de pe nds on l awpr ed at ing the a dopt ionof Ru le 1 -0 19 and

doe s no t e nc om

pa ss the 4 in te res t-b as ed an al y si s con te m pl at ed by th e ru le

. Se e Shawv . Sha w , 603 S o. 2d 2 87, 5 293 (M iss

. 199 2) (stating that th e parties there err ed in r ely ing on pre-r ule case law 6 an d f ai lin g to a na ly ze j oin de r unde r Ru le 19 o f the Mi ssi ssi ppi Ru le s of Ci vil 7 Pr oc ed ur e) ; Za m or a v. St. V

inc en t H osp. , 201 4- N MS C- 035, ¶ 10, 335 P

. 3d 1 243 8 (stating that NewMexico adopted the federal r u l es of civil procedure in 1942). 9 Si m ilarl y , a lth ough M adri d w as f ile d a ft er the a dopt ionof

the r ule s, it s ho ldi ng 10 de pe nds en tir el y

on D e B er

ge re and other early

cases that did not address th e im pact 11 of th e ru le s o f ci vi l p ro ced ur e. M adri d , 1950 -N MSC- 043, ¶ 6. Thus, the per tinence 12 of it s an al y si s t o a ss es sm en t o f joi nd er u nd er Ru le 1-0 19 is s u s p ect

. See Shaw , 603 13 So

. 2d at 293 (s ta tin g tha t “ [a ] lth ough[ a Mi ssi ssi ppi c as e] w as de ci de d su bse que nt 14 to the a dopt ionof

the Mi ssi ssi ppi Ru le s of

Ci vil Pr oc ed

ur e, its f ai lur e to c onsi de r the 15 im pli ca tio ns o f [M RC P] Ru le 19 r en de rs the va lid ity of its non-j oin de r hol din g 16 questio nable”). 17 { 21} T hir d, the fin al jud gm en t i nc lu de s s ev eral in co ns is te nc ie s t ha t, g iv en th e le ng th 18 of ti m e be tw ee n th e be nc h tr ia l and j udgm en t, a s w el l as the shi ft s in d ir ec tio n of both 19 the li ti gants a nd the c ourt, c au se unc er ta inty a s to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te nt. F or15

1 instance, H ancock’ s com plaint arose after

Nic oley ere cted a fence at the corner that 2 was in a di ffer en t p la ce t ha n t he fen ce t ha t ha d be en th ere fo r “ si xt y -fi ve y ears .” As 3 we understand it, Han co ck’ s theory at trial w as that, e ven if the new fence wa s 4 consist ent with t he survey ed boun dary , the old fence location at the corner had been 5 long agree d to bythe parties and thus was the legal bound ary by acquiescence. Given 6 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus iontha t H an co ck ha d pr ev ai le d inhe r boun da ry by 7 ac qui es ce nc e ar gum en t, it is not cl ear to us how it ar ri ve d a t the c onc lus iontha t the 8 boun dary

at the corner

wa s the survey ed boun dary , but the rest of the boundary wa s 9 the f en ce li ne . I n othe r w or ds, if Han co ck pr ev ai le d inhe r ac qui es ce nc e ar gum en t, 10 why did the dis trict court’ s order reflect the oppo site of what she originallyrequested 11 as to the co rn er ? Fi na lly , sin ce the pr em ise of the doc tr ine of a cquie sc en ce is tha t the 12 ag re ed -t o bo undary

is giv enle ga l effect

de spi te the bou ndary

se t ou t i n ade ed

or 13 sur ve y , it is unc le ar

w ha t purpos e the dis tr ic t c ourt i nte nde d a ddi tio na l surv ey s to 14 se rv e . Se e U U

B ar R anc h L td. P ’s hip , 200 9- N MS C- 010, ¶ 50 ( sta tin g th at

“ [t ] he 15 doc tr ine [ of

a cquie sc en ce , ]

. . . hol ds tha t w he re part ie s a gr ee , e ve n im pli ci tly upo n 16 a b ou nd ary, th atbo un da ry m ay be est ab li sh edas a mat t e r of law ev en if

it is not 17 ac cu rat e ac co rdi ng t o plats , surve ys or o the r m aps ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) ). O n r em an d, 18 th e d is tri ctco ur t s ho ul d c la rif y it s i nt en ti on as t o t he se is su es .16

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 22} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e the j udgm en t as it re la te s to whe the r the 3 fe nc e lin e is the le ga l boundary be tw ee n the south parc el a nd N ic ole y ’ s pr ope rty a nd 4 rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s Op in io n. 5 { 23} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6 7 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 10 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 12 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e1718

H an co ck W est Par cel Nicoley 1 At tachm ent 1

2

3 H an co ck South Parcel