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

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: O ct ob er 20, 201 6 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4993 5 T.H . M CEL VA IN OIL & GA S LIM ITED PA RTN ERS HIP, a Ne w Mexico 6 li m ite d pa rt ne rs hi p; KA R EN A N N HA N D LE Y A N D ER SO N , an in di vid ua l; 7 SU S A N R . H A N D L E Y M C G R E W , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; B I L L I E L . P H I L L I P S , an 8 in di vid ua l; BI LL IE L. P HI LL IP S REC OVERABL E T RU ST D A TE D A P RIL 23, 9 199 6, BILL IE L. P HI LL IP S Tr us te e; JU D Y LY N N QU IN T, an in di vid ua l; 10 RONALD CHARLES WEE BER, a n i n di vi dua l; L UCILE ALICE 11 NOR THC OTE T RU ST D ATE D M AY29, 1996, BILLIE L . P HILLIP S, 12 Succ essor Truste e, 13 Pl ai nti ff

s- Re spon de nts , 14 v. 15 GRO UP I: BEN SON -MO NTIN -GREER DRILLING COR P. , IN C. , a Delaw are 16 co rp or at ion ; EL IZ A BE TH JE A N N E TU RN ER C A LL OW A Y , an in di vid ua l; 17 KE LL Y R . KI N N EY , an in di vid ua l; KA TH ERIN E P . M IL LE R , an in di vid ua l; 18 R ON A LD M IC HA EL M IL LE R , an in di vid ua l; V IC KI E R OA N N M IL LE R , an 19 in di vi dua l; T HOMAS R. MILLE R, an i ndi vi dua l; FRED E. TURNER, LL C, a 20 D el aware li m it ed li ab il ity co m pa ny ; JO HN LE E T U RN ER , an in di vid ua l; 21 LI NDA VOITL a/ k

/a LI NDA D A V I S , an i ndi vi dua l; E STATE OF WI LLI AM 22 G. WEBB, dec eased, JOHN G. TAY LOR , in depe nden t exec utor, 23 D ef

en dants -P et iti one rs , 24 GRO UP II: CH ERY L U . A DA MS, an individual; E’TWILAJ. A XTE LL, 25 an individual; B P A MERICAPR ODU CTION CO MP AN Y, a De law are 26 co rpo ra tio n; COAST AL WATE RS PETROL EUM COMPANY, INC., a 27 Lo ui sia na c or po ra ti on ; EN ER GE N R ES OU R C ES C OR P OR A TI ON , an 28 Alabam a corporation; T HE ES TAT E OF AN NE B. LITTLE , F IRST1 SECURI TY BANK O F N E W M E X I C O , a s p e r so na l re pres enta tiv e; LANA GAY 2 P H IL L IP S , an i n d i vi d u al ; H E N R IE T T A S C H U L T Z , an i n d i vi d u al; THE 3 FR AN K AN D HEN RIET TA SC HUL TZ REV OCA BLE TRU ST DATED 4 JAN UA RY2, 1990, HEN RI ET TA SC H UL TZ, Tr us te e; SCHU LTZ 5 MA N A G E M E N T , L T D . , a T e x a s l i mi t e d p a r t n e r s hi p; J . GLENN TURNER, J R., 6 LLC, a Dela w ar e li m ite d li ab il ity co m pa ny ; MARY FRA NCES TURNER, JR. 7 TRU ST, JP M ORG AN CH AS E BA NK, NA , T ruste e, 8 D ef

en dants , 9 GRO UP III: ALL UN KNO WN C LAIM AN TS OF INTE RES T IN THE 10 PREMISE S A DV ERS E TO T HE P LAIN TIFF S, 11 D ef

en dants . 12 an d 13 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4997 14 T.H . M CEL VA IN OIL & GA S LIM ITED PA RTN ERS HIP, a N ew Mexico 15 li m ite d pa rt ne rs hi p; KA R EN A N N HA N D LE Y A N D ER SO N , an in di vid ua l; 16 SU SA N R . HA N D LE Y M C GREW, an in di vid ua l; BI LL IE L. P HI LL IP S, an 17 in di vid ua l; BIL LIE L. P HI LL IP S REC OV ER A BL E T RU ST D A TE D A P RIL 23, 18 1996 , BI LL IE L. P HI LL IP S, Tr us te e; JU D Y LY N N QU IN T, an in di vid ua l; 19 RONALD CHARLES WEE BER, a n in di vi dua l; L U CIL E ALI CE 20 NOR THC OTE T RU ST D ATE D M AY29, 1996, BILLIE L . P HILLIP S, 21 Succ essor Truste e, 22 Pl ai nti ff

s- Re spon de nts , 23 v. 24 GRO UP I: BEN SON -MO NTIN -GREER DRILLING COR P. , IN C. , a Delaw are 25 co rp or at ion ; EL IZ A BE TH JE A N N E T U RN ER C A LL OW A Y , an in di vid ua l; 26 KE LL Y R . KI N N EY , an in di vid ua l; KA TH ERIN E P . M IL LE R , an in di vid ua l; 27 R ON A LD M IC HA EL M IL LE R , an in di vid ua l; V IC KI E R OA N N M IL LE R , an 28 in di vi dua l; T HOMAS R. MILLE R, an i ndi vi dua l; FRED E. TURNER, LL C, a1 D el aware li m it ed li ab ili ty c om pa ny ; JO HN LE E T U RN ER , an ind iv idu al;

2 LI NDA VOITL a/ k

/a LI NDA DAVIS, a n i n d iv id ua l; E STATE OF WI LLI AM 3 G. WEBB, dec eased, JOHN G. TAY LOR , in depe nden t exec utor, 4 D ef

en dants , 5 GRO UP II: CH ERY L U . A DA MS, an individual; E’TWILAJ. A XTE LL, 6 an in di vid ua l; LA N A GA Y P HI LL IP S, an in di vid ua l; 7 D ef

en dants -P et iti one rs , 8 an d 9 BP AM ERIC A P ROD UC TION COM PANY, a De law are corporation; 10 COA STA L WATE RS PE TRO LEU M COM PA NY , INC ., a Louisiana 11 c o r p o r a t i o n ; E N E R G E N RE S O U R C E S CO R PO R A T I O N , a n Al a b a ma 12 co rpo ra tio n; TH E EST ATE OF ANNE B. LI TTL E, FIRST SECURI TY BANK 13 OF N EW M EX IC O, as p er son al r ep re se nt at ive ; HE N R IE TT A S C HU LT Z , an 14 individual; TH E FRAN K AND HE NRI ET TA SC H UL TZ REV O CAB LE TR UST 15 DA TED JAN UA RY2, 1990, HEN RIET TA SC HUL TZ , T ruste e; S CHU LTZ 16 MAN A GE M EN T, LT D . , a T ex as l im ite d pa rtne rs hi p; J . GLENN TURNER, J R., 17 LLC, a Dela w ar e li m ite d li ab il ity co m pa ny ; MARY FRANCES TURNER, JR. 18 TRU ST, JP M ORG AN CH AS E BA NK, NA , T ruste e, 19 D ef

en dants , 20 GRO UP III: ALL UN KNO WN C LAIM AN TS OF INTE RES T IN THE 21 PREMISE S A DV ERS E TO T HE P LAIN TIFF S, 22 D ef

en dants . 23 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 24 Joh n A . D ea n, Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e 25 Ga llegos LawFirm , P .C. 26 Ja ke E uge ne G al le gos 27 Mi ch ae l J. Co ndon1 Santa Fe , N M

2 fo r Pe tit ion er s G ro up I
3 Mi ll er St rat ve rt P .A. 4 D y lan O ’ Re ill y 5 Luke Sa lganek 6 San ta Fe, NM 7 for Pe tition ers G roup II
8 Cu dd y & McC art hy, L LP 9 John F. McCarthy , Jr
. 10 A rt ur o L
. Jaram ill o 11 Y
. JunRo h 12 San ta Fe, NM 13 Nixon Shefrin H ensen Ogburn, P. C. 14 He rbert A . D elap 15 Gr eenwood Village, CO 16 fo r Res po nd en ts T.H. McElv ai n Oi l & Gas Li m it edPart ne rs hi p, et al.,
17 Cars on Ry an LLC 18 Joel M. Carson, II I 19 Ro swe ll , NM 20 fo r A m ic us C ur ia e L an dm en ’ s A sso ci at ion1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 I. INTR ODU CTION 4 { 1} The underly ing cl aim givin g rise to this cont roversy constitu tes a collatera l 5 attack, requiring us to de t er m i ne whether it is apparent on the face of a 1948 qu iet 6 tit le j udgm en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt, w hic h e nte re d sa id j udgm en t, a ff irm at ive ly 7 lacked j urisdictio n over certa in parties because they we re notified b y

publi cation. It 8 is alleged t h at in the 1948 law suit su ch notice violated th e D ue Proce ss Clause, 9 de pr ivi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt of j ur isd ic tio n. O nly w he n a party ’ s w he re ab out s are not 10 reasonably

ascertainable following dili gent se a r c h and i nq ui r y c an c on st r uc t i ve notice 11 subs tit

ute f or pe rs ona l no tic e of su it . He re, c onstru ct ive se rv ic e of pr oc es s by 12 publ ication s at i s fied due process and established th e 1948 di strict court’ s personal 13 j ur isd ic tio n. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s 19 48 quie t t itl e j udgm en t w as not voi d, 14 an d, a cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the j udgm en t of the Co urt of

Appe al s. 15 II . BACKGRO UND 16 { 2} T his opi nio n a ddr es se s th e co nsol ida te d a ppe al s of tw o gr oups of

D ef en dants 17 from a Co ur

to f App e a l s r

ul i ng f a vo r abl e t o T
. H
. M c E l va i n O i l & G a s L im ited 18 Part ne rs hi p, et al., (Pl ai nt iff s)

. Se e T. H

. M cE lv ain O il & G as Lt

d. P ’s hip v. B en son19 M ont in- G re er

D ril lin g C

orp. , 2015-NMC A- 004, ¶ 55, 34 0 P. 3d 12 77. T he identities18 T he re co rd ind ic at es tha t w hil e D av id Mi lle r ha d purc ha se d th e Pr ope rty f ro m 1 19 the W ils ons, T hom as Mi lle r m ay ha ve c ontri but ed

one -h al f of

the pur ch as e pr ic e to 2 0 p o s s e s s a n u n d i v i d e do n e - h a l f i n t e r e s ti n t h e P r o p e rt y.

2 1 of the num er ous part ie s and undi sput ed f ac ts unde rl y ing the c as e ar e as f oll ow s. 2 { 3} In 1927 W
. W
. Mc E w an co nve y ed by ge ne ra l warr an ty de ed f ee -s im ple ti tle in 3 160 ac re s of

land in San Juan Co unty , N ewMe xic o ( the P ro pe rty ) to Judso n W ils on, 4 E vaW ils on, a nd M ab el W ils on, a s j oin t t en an ts w ith the r igh t of sur viv or shi p. T he 5 W ilson s, ac cording to th at d eed, wer e “ of San Diego, Ca lifornia.” The f ollowing y ear, 6 on Augus t 16, 1 92 8, the W ils ons ex ec ute d age ne ra l w ar ranty de ed in San D ie go, 7 co nve y ing the P ro pe rty to D av id M ill er , sub

j ec t t o th e fo llo w ing r es er va tio n: 8 [E ] xc ep tin g and r es er vin g to the gr an tor s he re in the oil a nd g as e xis tin g 9 or

f ound the re in, w iththe r igh t to e nte r on f or pr ospe ct ing or

de ve lop ing 10 sa m e, pr ovi de d th ey m ust pay a ll da m ag e to lan d or cr ops in p ro spe ct ing 11 or

de ve lop m en t. 12 { 4} O n M ar ch14, 1931 , D av id Mil le r co nve y ed by qui tc la im

de ed his int er es t i n 13 the Property

to his brother, Thom as Mi ller. The quit claim deed to Thom as Miller w as 1 14 silent as to any

reser vation clou ding fee -sim

ple title. T ho m as M i l l er did no t record 15 the de ed unt il Apr il 29, 1937 , af te r D av id Mi lle r’ s de ath. D av id Mi lle r ha d a lso 16 bequeathed his property in full to Thom as Miller. 17 { 5} Juds on W ils on die d on M ay 16, 192 9, a nd E vaW ils on d ie d onD ec em be r 17,3

1 1 9 4 4 , l ea v i n g Ma b el Wil s o n as t h e o n l y s u rv i v i n g jo i n tt en an tfr o m t h e o ri g i n al W.W. 2 Mc E w ande ed

. N oth ing in the re co rd ind ic at es tha t a ft er 192 8 Ju dsona nd E vaW ils on 3 t o o ka n y a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e P r o p e rt y. 4 { 6} Ma

b e l W i l s o n , t h e r e m a i n i n g j o i n t t e n a n t , l i v e d i n S a n D i e g o u n t i l h e r de at h 5 in 197 0. Mabel had m arrie d Charles W eeber prior to 1944, and thereaf ter w ent by

her 6 m arrie d nam e of Mabel W . W eeber. Following her death, M abel’ s estate w as 7 pr oba te d inthe S upe ri or Co urt f or S anD ie go Coun ty . H er es ta te ide nti fi ed anint er es t 8 in residential property in San D iego, but m ade no cl ai m to real property

in New 9 Mexico. Ch ar l es W eeber’ s estate sim ilarly m ade no claim

to real property

in New 10 Me xic o up on h is d eath i n 19 78. 11 { 7} On O ctober 21, 1948, T hom as Mille r filed a quiet title action in the District 12 Co urt f

or S anJuan C ounty . I n his co m pla int , T hom as Mi lle r al le ge d tha t he w as the 13 owner in fe e sim

ple of a to tal of 9 31 acre s in San Ju an County (the Sub j ect A crea ge), 14 w iththat a cr ea ge e nc om pa ssi ng the 160 -a cr e Pr ope rty pr es en tly in dis put e. O ve r fi fty 15 ind ivi dua ls w er e na m ed a s de fe ndants —a ll of whom w er e na m ed

a s de fe ndants if 16 liv ing , or

if de ce as ed , by

the ir unknow n heir s—w ith Juds on W ils on, E vaW ils on, a nd 17 Ma be l W ils on ea ch m ak ing the lis t. T hom as Mi lle r’ s a tto rn ey ve ri fi ed und er oa th the 18 al le gatio ns o f the c om pla int , w hic h inpart

state d th at4

1 if an y [d ] ef

en dants he re in .

. . sti ll ar e liv ing , an d re sid e in o r ha ve the ir 2 pla ce s of

r es ide nc e in the S ta te of N ewMe xic o, the sa id [ d] ef en dants 3 ha ve se cr et ed

the m se lve s so that se rv ic e of pr oc es s c an not

be ha d up on 4 them

in this cause, and that the only way in which said [ d] efendants can 5 be se rv ed

he re in i s by

pub lic at ion

. 6 T he c om

pla int a lso a lle ge d th at

a ny unknow n he ir s of

de ce as ed w er e “ unkn ow n to the 7 [p ] la int if

f, a nd [ p] la int if

f ha s be enuna

ble to le ar n or de te rm ine the na m es , pla ce s of 8 residence, Post Of

fice a ddresses and wherea bout s of the said unk n o wn heirs, afte r 9 dilig ent search and i n q u i ry f o r the sam e. ” Based on the allegations in th e verifie d 10 co m pla int , se rv ic e of pr oc es s w as a cc om pli she d by

pub lic at ionof

aN oti ce of

A ct ion 11 Pending in the Times Hustler , a we ekly newspaper publ ished in San Juan 12 County

—specifically

Far m ingto n, Ne w Mexico. Notice of the action ran in the paper 13 fo r fo ur

suc ce ssi ve w ee ks. 14 { 8} O n N o v e m

b e r 1 9 , 1 9 4 8 , t h e S h e r i f

f o f S a n J u a n C o u n t y

a t t e m p t e dt o s e rve 15 not ic e on a ll part ie s and s ubm itt ed ashe ri ff ’ s r et ur n st at ing that he 1 6 d i l i g e n t l y s e a r c h e d a n d i n qu i r e d f o r t h e [ d ]e f

e n d a n t s , a n de a c h o f

t h e m, 17 in the above -e nti tle d c au se ; tha t a ft er suc h se ar cha nd i nquiry , I ha ve 18 been unable to find anyof the [d] efen d an t s i n San Juan County , N ew 19 Me xic o, a nd I ha ve be enuna ble to fi nd the P ost

O ff ic e ad dr esse es , 20 pla ces of

r es ide nc e, or

w he re ab out s of

the [ d] ef en dants , or

e ith er of 2 1 t h e m. 22 N o nam ed de fe ndant en te re d an ap pe ar an ce in t he qui et ti tle a ct ion , but

som e fi le d a 23 dis cl ai m er

of int eres t in th e Su

bj ec t A cr ea ge . A s su ch , aqui et ti tle j udgm en t ( the5

1 1948 j udgm ent) w as entered on D ecem ber 20, 194 8 , q u i eting title to the Subje ct 2 A cr ea ge —w hic h, a ga in, inc lud ed the P ro pe rty

—i n f av or of T hom as M i lle r. T he 194 8 3 j udgm ent provided that Thom as Mi ller was t he owner of the Subjec t Ac reage in “ Fee 4 Si m ple T itl e, ” an d 5 tha t a ft er

dil ige nt s earc h and i nqui ry the post of fi ce a ddr es se s, pla ce s of 6 re sid en ce , a nd w he re ab outs of all the [ d] ef en dants ’ he re in [ ex ce pti ng 7 tho se that f

ile d aD isc la im er

of I nte re st] , a ll are unknow n and 8 ascerta ined; and that none of the said [ d] efendants, other than tho se set 9 out abov e, can be personally served w ith process in th is cause. 10 { 9} Tho m as Mi ll er th e r e a f t e r e x e r c i s e d f e e - s i mp l e o w n e r s h i p o ve r th e Pro pe rty. On 11 January

15, 195 0, T hom as Mi lle r co nve y ed t he S ubj ec t A cr ea ge to V
. H
. Mc Re e w hil e 12 reser ving three-quarte rs of the m ineral righ t s . Then, in 1952 , the P roperty wa s 13 com m itted to th e San Juan 32 -5 fe d eral uni t area , of which Stanolind Oil and Ga s 1 4 Co m p a n y w a s t h e o p e r a t o r . I n 1 9 5 3 , M i l l e r a n dM c R e e e x e c u t e da n o i l , g a s , a nd 15 m ineral lease with Stanolind Oil and Gas Com pany —and McRee reser

ved a one16 ei ghth r oy al ty

int erest in th e m ine ra ls p ro duc ed f ro m the le as e. S tanol ind

O il 17 Com pany becam e Pan Am erican Petroleum Corporation in 19 57 and m ade three 18 as sig nm en ts o f its le as eh old int er es t t o J. G le nn T ur

ne r, ult im at el y co nve y ing to h im 19 al l of its int er es t appurt en an t to the Pr ope rty . J. G le nn T ur ne r subs eque ntl y , in 1959 , 20 1960 , a nd 1 961, m ad e vari ous oth er a ssi gnm en ts o f his m ine ra l i nte re sts appur te nant6

1 to the P ro pe rty

be fo re dy ing in 1975 a nd leavin g his prop er ty in tr ust f or his son , J. 2 G le nn T ur

ne r, Jr
. , a nd a

D al la s bank. 3 { 10} In195 6 V

. H
. Mc Re e co nve y ed his int er es t in the Pr ope rty , by w ar ranty de ed , 4 to H
. F. a nd F re daA xte ll. T he A xte lls the re af te r ex ec ute d se parate tr

ust a gr ee m en ts, 5 nam ing E’ Tw ila Axtell, Chery l Adam s, and Lana Phillips as beneficiar ies. A s of May 6 2008 the beneficiar ies had becom e successor co-tr ustees of the trusts throu gh a series 7 of qui tc la im tra ns ac tio ns, thu s e nti tli ng the m to the one -e igh th r oy al ty int er es t 8 ste m m in g fro m

Mc Re e’ s on e- quart er

int er es t i n th e m ine ra l r igh ts, a s c onve y ed by 9 Mi lle r in 1 950. 10 { 11} As noted, Ma

bel W eeber—the surviving joint tenant from the McE wan 11 de ed —and h er husband, Ch ar le s W ee be r, die d inthe 197 0s w ith out c la im ing a ny 12 pr ope rty

in N ewMe xic o. T he 194 8 S anD ie go C ity D ir ec tor y c ontai ns ali sti ng f

or 13 “ W eeber Chas E (Mabel W ). ” T he directory indicated that Charles and Mabel W eeber 14 liv ed a t 3767 Pe rs hin g Ave nue . H ist or ic al ve rs ion s of the dir ec tor y , f ro m 192 6 and 15 1930 , li ste d th at

sa m e Pe rs hin g a ddr es s f

or the n- liv ing Jud son an d E vaW ils on. 16 { 12} Again, there i s noth ing in the rec ord indicating that Juds on, E va, or Mabel 17 W ils on took an y ac tio n re gard ing the Pr ope rty af te r gr an tin g the 1928 de ed to D av id 18 Mi lle r. I nde ed , it

w as not unt il 2002 w he n a landm an re pr es en tin g a P la int if f in this7

1 case, T.H. M cE lvain Oil & G as L im ited Partnership (T .H . Mc Elvain O il & Ga s), 2 inf orm ed Judy L ynn Q uin t and R o n a l d

C h ar l e s W e e b e r

—M a b e l W ils on’ s su cc es sor s3 in- int er es t—tha t the y

w ere “ the c ur

re nt o w ne rs of

the oil a nd g as ” int er es ts 4 appurtenant to th e Pr operty . S ubsequ ently , Judy Ly nn Quint and Ronald Charles 5 W ee be r en te re d in to a fi ve -y ear le as e w ith T
. H
. Mc E lva in O il & G as f or $2, 320. 00 6 ea ch

. 7 { 13} T he P ro pe rty

pr es en tly

li es be ne ath N av aj o L ak e. I n 20 07 the appur te nant 8 m ine ra l i nte re sts gr eatly inc re as ed

in va lue af

te r E ne rg enRe sour ce s su cc es sf ull y 9 drilled coal seam gas we lls in the underly ing bedrock, and the Property wa s then-after 10 inc or por at ed int o tw o Fr

uit land coa lbe d we ll- spa ci ng unit s. E ne rg enRe sour ce s ho lds 11 hundre ds o f tho usands of dol lars in es cr ow pe ndi ng re sol uti on of this li tig at ion —the 12 pr im ar

y dis put e in this c as e, the n, c onc er ns o w ne rs hip of

tho se m ine ra l r igh ts. 13 { 14} The pr o ced ur al po st ur e o f th is cas e is as f ol lo ws. In 20 10 Pla in ti ffs —T.H. 14 McE lvain Oil & G as, and oth er succe ssors-in-interest to the 19 27 joint tenancy 15 granted to Jud son W ilson , E va W ilson , and Mabel W ilson by W .W . Mc Ew an—filed 16 sui t t o qu ie t t itl e in the m ine ra l inte re sts ap purte nant t o th e Pr ope rty , ini tia lly m ak ing 17 no m en tio n of

the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e j udgm en t. A ft er be co m ing aware of

the 194 8 18 j udgm en t i n th e co ur se of the ple ad ing s, P la int if

fs w er e fo rc ed to c hange c our se a nd,14 T he a lig nm ent of the part ie s and b ri ef ing in thi s c as e do n ot m at chthe c as e 2 15 ca pti on. I n it s or de r the dis tr ic t c ourt qui et ed the ri ght , tit le , an d ow ne rs hip of the oil 16 an d ga s le as eh old

e sta te appur

te nant t o th e Pr ope rty

i nB e n s o n - M o n t i n- G re er

D ri lli ng 17 Co rp . , I nc . ; H enri ettaS chult z T ru ste e, S hul tz Manage m en t L td. ; E liz ab eth Je an ne 18 Turner

Calloway ; J. Glenn Turner , Jr., LL C; John Le e Turner ; Fred E . T urner L LC ; 1 9 a n dM a ry

F r a n c i s T u rn e r , J r . T r

u s t , J
. P
. M o r g a n C h a s e B a n kN
. A

. T r u s t e e . T hose 20 int er es ts h er ei n r ep re se nt Gro up 1

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso qui et ed r igh t, ti tle , a nd 21 ow ne rs hip of

a3. 125% m ine ra l i nte re st ro y al ty in the Pr ope rty in C he ry l U

. A da m s, 22 E ’ T w ila

J. A xte ll, a nd L an a G ay

P hil lip s. T hose int er es ts her ei n re pr es en t Gr oup 2. 8 1 he nc e, c ha lle nge d th e co nst itu tio na l ef fe ct ive ne ss of the se rv ic e of pr oc es s m ad e by 2 publ ic at ionon the ir pr ed ec es sor s- in- int er es t. In es se nc e, Pl ai nti ff s tra ce the ir

c la im 3 to t itl e ba ck

to the re se rv at ionof

m ine ra l i nte re sts in the 192 8 de ed f ro m the W ils ons 4 to D av id M ill er , a lle gin g t ha t res er va tio n is sti ll ef

fe ct ive be ca

use the a lle ge dly 5 insufficient service of process on the W ilson s void ed the 1948 j udgm ent as it applied 6 t o t h e m. 7 { 15} T he na m ed

D ef en dants in th e instant s uit f al l i nto tw o gr oups : G ro up 1 ( the 8 Be nsongr oup) a nd G ro up 2 ( the A xte ll G ro up)

. T he part ie s in G roup 1 2 9 co unt er cl ai m ed

to qui et ti tle in the P ro pe rty ’ s oi l and g as le as eh old int er es ts, w hil e 10 som e part ie s inG ro up 2 c ount er cl ai m ed to qui et ti tle in a pe rc en ta ge of

roy al ty 11 int er es ts f

low ing f ro m the P ro pe rty ’ s m ine ra l pr oduc tio n. G ro up 1 D ef en dants de ri ve 12 the ir cl ai m to ti tle in the P ro pe rty ’ s oi l and g as le as eh old int er es ts f

ro m the 194 8 13 j udgm ent in favor of T hom as Miller, and subs equent assign m en t s m ad e b y Miller,9

1 Pan A m er ic anP etro le um Co rp or at ion , a nd J

. G le nn T ur n e r . T h i s C o urt

ha s pr ev iou sly 2 qui et ed ti tle in the P ro pe rty

in favor of som e of the G ro up 1 De fe ndants , f oll ow ing 3 an an ci ll ary p ro ba te of J . Glen n Tu rn er’s es ta te . Se e M

. H

. Clark v. B en son-

M ont in4 G re er D ril lin g C

orp. , N o. 78- 1260 ( N
. M. S up. Ct

. Jul

. 12, 1982 ) (m an da te ). G ro up 5 2 Defen da nt s de riv e th ei r cl ai m to ti tl e in royalt y in te res ts in th e Pro pe rty from V.H. 6 Mc Re e’ s re se rv at ion of a one -e igh th roy al ty int er es t i n th e m ine ra ls p ro duc ed by his 7 lease to Stanolind Oil and Gas C om pany , and the sub s eq u en t transaction between 8 V
. H
. Mc Re e an d H ar

ri son an d Fr ed a A xte ll tha t re sul te d in v ar iou s tr ust a gr ee m en ts 9 be ne fi tte d by

the r oy al tie s. 10 { 16} T he pa rt i e s f

i l e dc r o s s - m o t i o n s f

o r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n tc l a i m i n g t i t l e t o the 11 re le vant m ine ra l i nte re sts . T o a ssi st the dis tr ic t c ourt in d et er m ini ng the ow ne rs hip of 12 the m ine ra l r igh ts at i ssu e, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppoi nte d aspe ci al m as te r pu rs uant t o 13 Ru le 1- 053 N MR

A

. T he spe ci al m as te r de te rm ine d th at the G ro up 1 a nd G ro up 2 14 D ef en dant s we re e nti tle d to sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he spe ci al m as te r re j ec te d th e 15 Pl ai nti ff

s’ c oll at er al a tta ck

on the 194 8 quie t titl e j udgm en t sta tin g, “ the re is n oth ing 1 6 t o i n d i ca t e t h at Th o m as Mi l l erh ad i n fo rmat i o n re g ar d i n g Mab el Wee b er ’s 17 w he re ab out s or

that he r w he re ab out s c oul d be ide nti fi ed thr oughr eas on ab le 18 dil ige nc e; the re fo re , the [ c] ourt’ s c onc lus ionin 1948 that sh e co uld not be loc at ed

f or10

1 pe rs ona l se rv ic e ap pe ar s a ppr opr ia te . ” T he spe ci al m as te r de te rm in ed tha t any 2 investig ation byThom as Miller in 1948 would n ot have been likely to locate Mabel 3 W ee be r fo r se rv ic e of

pr oc es s be ca

use she did

not ap pe ar

in the 194 8 S anD ie go 4 te le phon e dir ec tor

y a s M ab el W ils on, a nd a lso be ca use , by 19 48 , b othJud son an d 5 E vaW ils on h ad

die d. 6 { 17} The special m as ter further concluded that the Plaintiffs’ claim to title was 7 barred by

laches, wa iver, and estopp el because “ [t] he W i l s o n s an d their successors 8 did nothin g to c la im

a ny ow ne rs hip int er es t i n the oil a nd g as c onne ct ed to the 9 property from the date of the deed to D avid [ Miller] in 1928 until 2002 when 10 McE lvain Oil & G as sough t to enter into a lease. ” T he special m aster also re cognized 11 that there w as not an ancillary probate proceeding for either of t he estates of Mabel 12 or Ch ar le s W ee be r tha t l ist ed ow ne rs hip int er es t in the Pr ope rty as be ing part of the ir 13 es ta te s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r ad opt ing the sp eci al m as te r’ s r ep ort and 14 re co m m en da tio ns, a nd ru le d in favor of D ef en dants by

gr an tin g th ei r m oti on f

or 15 sum m ar y j udgm en t. T itl e w as thu s qu ie te d in fav or of the G ro up 1 a nd G ro up 2 16 D ef en dants . 17 { 18} Pl ai nti ff

s th enappe al ed

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r, a nd the Co urt of Appe al s 18 rev ers ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Defen da nt s. T.H.11

1 M cE lv ain O il & G as , 2015-NMC A- 004, ¶ 4. The C ourt of Appeals concluded that 2 T hom as Mi ll er had

f ai le d to e xe rc ise dil ige nc e an d go od f ai th i n no tif

y ing the 3 W ils ons of

the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e ac tio n, en ab li ng P la int if fs ’ c oll at er al a tta ck

on the 4 19 48 jud gm en t fo r la ckof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . Id

. ¶ 55. The Co urt of

Appe al s 5 fu rth er c onc lud ed

that the r ec or d di d no t su ppor t a f ind ing of w ai ve r, la ch es , a nd 6 es to pp el on th e p art of P la in ti ffs

. Id . ¶ 55. G roup 1 and Group 2 De fe n d ants then 7 ap pe al ed th e Co ur t of App eal s op in io n to th is Co ur t, an d we g ran te d c ert io rari

. See 8 T. H

. M cE lv ain O il & G as Lt

d. P ’s hip v . B en son-

M ont in- G re er

, D ril lin g C

orp. , 201 4- 9 NMCERT-0 12

. 10 { 19} T his appe al r es ts up on th e va lid ity of the 194 8 j udgm en t qu ie tin g ti tle to the 11 Pr operty

in favor of T hom as Mi lle r. O ur

de te rm ina tio n of

thi s ul tim at e iss ue r es ts 1 2 up o n w h e t h e r

t h e c o n s t r

u c t i v e s e rv i c e - o f

- p r o c e s s m a d e b y

p ub l i c a t i o n up o n t he 13 W ils ons ba ck

in 1 948 m et

c onst itu tio na l st an dard s of due pr oc es s and w as in 14 ac co rd an ce w ith the Ru le s of Civ il Pr oc ed ur e the n ine ff

ec t. I f the 194 8 j udgm en t i s 15 va lid , P la int if

fs ’ r igh t t o th e m ine ra l i nte re sts is fo re cl ose d and D ef en dants w oul d be 1 6 en tit le d t o j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f t h e 1 9 4 8 j u d g m en t i s 17 void , P laintiffs m aycontinu e to adj udicate the m erits of their cla im in accordance 18 w iththi s op ini on. T o su ppor t the ir c la im P la int if fs m ak e a co ll ate ra l a tta ck on the12

1 1948 j udgm en t, w hic h c anonl y suc ce ed if “ la ck of j ur isd ic tio n ap pe ar s a ff

irm at ive ly 2 on the fa ce of

the j udgm en t or

in the j udgm en t r oll or

r ec or d, or

is m ad e to a

ppe ar in 3 som e other perm issib le m anner. ” See In re E state of Baca , 198 0- N MS C- 135, ¶ 11, 4 95 N. M. 294, 621 P. 2d 51 1. In dec iding the validityof the 1 9 4 8 judgm ent we are 5 called u pon to consider not only the inherent com plexities of a successful collateral 6 at ta c k o n a l o n g s t a n d i n g j u d g m e n t , b u t a l s o t h e c o m p e t i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f f

i n al ity in 7 co urt j udgm en ts and the r igh t t o du e pr oc es s be fo re the de pr iva tio n of one’ s pr ope rty 8 by a nothe r. Be fo re w e ad dr es s th es e im portant l eg al pr inc ipl es in the c ont ex t of the 9 posi tio ns t ak enby

the part ie s, w e pause to ar tic ula te the le ga l st an dard s of r ev ie wf or 10 summ ary

j udgm ent in NewMexico with re spect to the specific legal issues presented 11 by thi s a ppe al

. 12 III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 13 { 20} The district c ourt, upon cross m otion s for summ ary j udgm en t , granted 14 Defen da nt s’ m ot io n. We rev ie w th at gr an t of summ ary jud gm en t de n ov o. H yd ro R es . 15 Co rp. v . G ray , 2007-NMS C-061, ¶ 14, 143 N.M. 142, 173 P. 3d 74 9. Sum m ary 16 j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he re the f

ac ts are und isp ute d and the m ovant i s e nti tle d to 17 jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Id

. W e vie w the fa ct s in the ligh t m ost f av or ab le to the 18 pa rty op po si ng th e m ot io n an d in du lg e al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th ei r fav or . Sm ith13

1 v. Durden , 2012-NMS C-010, ¶ 5, 276 P.3d 943. N ewMexico Courts generally view 2 su m m ary jud gm en t wi th di sf

av or . Rom ero v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 201 0- N MS C- 035, 3 ¶ 8, 148 N.M. 713, 242 P.3d 280. Beca use the distri ct co u rt granted summ ary 4 j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dants , w e m

ust r ev ie w the fa ct s in the l igh t m ost f av or ab le 5 to P la int if

fs

. 6 { 21} A party

m ovi ng f

or summ ar

y j udgm en t m

ust m ee t i ts i nit ia l burd enof 7 es ta bli shi ng a pri m a fa ci e ca se f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. Se e R oth v . T

hom pson , 199 2- 8 NM S C

- 01 1, ¶ 17 , 11 3 N
. M
. 33 1, 82 5 P
. 2d 12 41

. O nc e a m ov i ng part y m e e t s that 9 ini tia l burd enof

e stabl ish ing e vid en ce that the re a re no i ssu es of m at er ia l f

ac t, a nd 10 tha t j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawm ay

be appr opr ia te , the bur de n sh ifts to the 11 nonm o v i n g p ar

ty t o a lte rn at ive ly

e sta bli sh e vid en ce that i ssu es of m at er ia l f ac t r em ai n 12 re qui ri ng a

tr ia l onthe m er its

. S

e e R o m e ro , 201 0- N MS C- 035, ¶ 10 ( ci ta tio ns 13 om itted). T he “ evidence adduced m ust result in reasonable infere nces.” Id

. ( ci ta tio ns 14 om itt ed ). “ A n in fe re nc e is n ot a sup posi tio n or a

c onj ec tur e, but

is a log ic al de duc tio n 15 from fac ts proved and guess work is not a subs titute therefor. ” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n 16 m arks and citation om itted). 17 { 22} D ef

en dants of

fe r as e vid en ce in supp or

t of the ir m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t 18 the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e j udgm en t gr an ting th ei r pr ed ec es sor s- in- int er es t t itl e to the14

1 m ine ra l inte re sts in the P ro pe rty , w hic h th ey the re by a sse rt e nti tle s th em

to j udgm en t 2 as a m atte r of law . T o suc ce ssf ull y re but D ef

en dants ’ m oti on fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t, 3 Pl ai nti ff

s ne ed ed to ad duc e ev ide nc e es ta

bli shi ng the e xis te nc e of

m at er ia l i ssu es of 4 fa ct j ust if y ing atr ia l onthe m er its a s to whe the r tha t 1948 j udgm en t wa s vo id and d id 5 no t b in d P la in ti f

f s ’ pr ed eces so rs -in -in te res t. Se e R om er o , 201 0- N MS C- 035, ¶ 10. 6 Voi d judg m en ts can be su bjec t t o a co ll at eral att ack

. Nesbi t v. Ci tyofA lbu que rque , 7 1977 -N MS C- 107, ¶

12, 91 N

. M. 455 , 575 P
. 2d 1 340. A li tig an t m ay c oll at er al ly 8 atta ck aj udgm en t by

im pe ac hin g th at

j udgm ent wi th m atte rs out sid e of it s r ec or d. 9 Se e A rth ur v . G arc ia , 196 7- N MS C- 205, ¶ 6, 78 N

. M. 381 , 4 31 P.2 d 759 (r ef er ri ng 10 to Lu cu s v. R uc km an , 19 55 -NMSC -0 14 , ¶ 12 , 59 N.M. 50 4, 2 87 P.2d 68 , overruled 11 on oth er gro u n d

s by Kalosha v. Novick , 197 3- N MS C- 010, ¶ 12, 84 N

. M. 502 , 505 12 P. 2d 84 5). P laintiffs’ rebut of D efendants’ m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent thus n eeded 13 to a dve rt

to ev ide nc e de m onstratin g th at the 1948 j udgm en t sh oul d be se t a sid e, a nd 14 “ one w ho ch al le nge s an unr ev er se d j udgm en t re gul ar ly en te re d ha s a ve rydiff ic ult 15 ta sk .” Ci tyof

A lbu que rque v . H

uddl es ton , 1951 -N MS C- 032, ¶ 12, 55 N. M. 240, 230 16 P. 2d 97 2 (citations om itted). 17 { 23} W e be ginour ex am ina tio n of the m er its of P la int if fs ’ c la im by a cknow le dgi ng 18 the hig h st an dard

that15

1 in N ewMe xi co that e ve ry pr es um pti on c onsi ste nt w iththe r ec or d is 2 ind

ulg ed in favor of the j ur isd ic tio n of

c ourts of

ge ne ra l j ur isd ic tio n 3 w h o s e ju d g men t s c a n n o tb e qu e s t i o n e dwh e n a t t a c k e dc o l l a t e r a l l y, 4 un l e s s l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ap p e a r s a f f i rm a t i v e l y o n t h e f

a c e of the 5 j u d g me n to r

i n t h e j u d g me n tr o l l o r

r e c o r d , o r

i s ma d e t o ap p e a r

i n s o me 6 ot he r pe rm is si bl e m an ne r.” 7 In re E state of Baca , 198 0- N MS C- 135, ¶ 11. H er e, P la int iffs al le ge it is f ac ia lly 8 apparent that the district court entering t h e 1 9 4 8 judgm ent affir m atively lacked 9 pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n ov er P la int if fs ’ pr ed ec esso rs- in- int er es t du e to i nsuf fi ci en t 1 0 se rv ic e o f p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l au s e , U
. S

. C o n s t . a m e n d

. X I V , § 1, 11 re nde ri ng the j udgm en t vo id. D ef en dants , by

c ontra st, a sse rt

that the se rv ic e of 12 process by

publi ca tion in the 1948 district court proceedings m et constitut ional 13 standards and was theref ore ef fective f or the distr i ct co u rt to acquire personal 14 j ur isd ic tio n ov er

a ll of the de fe ndants , inc lud ing P la int if fs ’ pr ed ec es sor -i n- int er es t, 15 Mabel W eeber. 16 { 24} By

our de nov o r ev ie wof

D ef en dants ’ m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, w e m

ust 17 al so c onsi de r w ha t i s ne ce ssary to lod ge am er ito ri ous co llate ra l a tt ack on a 18 lon gst an din g j udgm en t, wher e the c oll at er al a tta ck a lle ge s vo idn es s f

or the la ck of 19 pe rs ona l j ur isdic ti on beca use the m ethod of

pe rs ona l se rv ic e did

not sa tis fy the 20 req ui rem en ts of d ue pro ces s. W e rev ie w th os e in te rrel at ed is su es of la w de no vo . Ci ty 21 of A zte c v. G urul e , 201 0- N MS C- 006, ¶ 5, 147 N
. M. 693 , 228 P
. 3d 4 77 ( ci ta tio ns16

1 om itted). 2 IV. DISC US SION 3 A. Du e P rocess Re quire s Ade quate Notice 4 { 25} The D ue Proc es s Clause of the Fourtee nth Am endm ent to the United States 5 Co nst itutio n pr ohi bits d ep riv at io n o f pr op ert y ab se nt ad eq ua te pro ced ur al saf eg ua rd s. 6 U
. S. C o n s t . a m e n d

. X I V , § 1

. T h e r i g h t t o b e h e a r d i n a c o u rt o f l a w i n r e s p o n s e to 7 proceedings seeking to deprive one of o n e’s own property is a fundam ental 8 re qui re m en t of

due pr oc es s. “ T he fundam en ta l re qui sit e of due pr oc es s of

lawis the 9 oppo rtunity

to be heard. ” M

ullane v . Ce nt. H

anov er B ank & T r. Co

. , 339 U
. S. 306 , 10 314 (1 950) ( int er

na l qu ot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ A n e le m en tary a nd 11 fundam ental requirem ent of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded 12 fi na lity

is no tic e re as ona

bly c al cu la te d, und er

a ll the c ir cu m stanc es , to ap pr ise 13 int er es te d part ie s of

the pe nde nc y

of the a ct iona nd a ff

or d th em an op po rtuni ty

to 14 present their obje ctions.” Id

. ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A j udgm en t e nte re d a bse nt s uf fi ci en t 15 se rv ic e of

pr oc es s up on a

de fe ndant v iol at es due pr oc es s and i s v oi d as to the 16 de fen da nt for w a n t o f p e rs on al juri sd ic ti on . Se e id . at 313 (not ing “ the right of [a 17 sta te ’ s] c ourts t o de te rm ine the interes t of a ll cl ai m an ts, r es ide nt o r nonr es ide nt, 18 pr ovi de d it s pr oc ed

ur e ac co rd s f

ull opp or tu ni ty t o be he ar d” ); see also Johns on v.17

1 Shul er , 200 1- N MS C- 009, ¶ 11, 130 N
. M. 144 , 20 P

. 3d 1 26 ( Jur isd ic tion ov er the 2 pe rs on e m

br ac es not ion s of

c ont ac ts w iththe S ta te a nd s uf fic ie nc y of not ic e of the 3 ac tio n. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; In re E state of Baca , 198 0- 4 N MS C- 135, ¶

10, ([ W ] he n att ac ke d for fa ilure of se rv ic e of pr oc es s, [ a j udgm en t] is 5 void as to those persons not served and their successors.” ( citations om itted)); 6 Restatem ent (Sec ond) on J udgm ents § 65 (Am . L awIns t . 1 9 8 2 ) (“ A c ourt has 7 au tho ri ty

to re nde r j udgm en t i n an a ct ionw he n th e co urt ha s j ur isd ic tio n of the 8 sub ject m at ter

of the a ct ion

. . . a nd .

. . [ a] de qua te not ic e ha s be ena ff or de d th e 9 party .” ) 10 { 26} T o m ee t the f undam en ta l r equir em en ts o f due pr oc es s, apla intiff m ust 11 undertake a diligent and g ood faith effort to locate defe n d an ts and serve them 12 p e r s o n a ll y

wit h n ot ic e. Ca m

pbe ll v. D ohe rty , 1 94 9- N M S C

- 03 0, ¶ ¶ 3 0- 31 , 5 3 N
. M. 13 280, 206 P.2d 114 5. But personal service is not alway s feasib le, and in such cases 14 co ns tru ct iv e n ot ic e m ay sat is fy du e p ro ces s. M

ullane , 339 U. S. at 317. T o m eet 15 co nst itu tio na l st an dard s, 16 [t] he notice m

ust be of s uch nature as reasonably to convey the required 17 inf

orm at iona nd it m

ust a ff or d ar ea sona

ble ti m e fo r tho se int er es te d to 18 m ak e the ir

a ppe ar an ce , [ b] ut i f w ithdue re gard f or the pr ac tic al iti es a nd 19 pe cu liari tie s of the c as e the se c ondi tio ns ar e re as ona bly m et the 20 co nst itu tio na l r equir em en ts are sa tis fi ed

.18

1 Id

. at 314-15 (citations om itted). 2 { 27} N oti ce of co urt proc ee din gs cannot j ust be a m er e ges tur e, e lse it w ill not pa ss 3 co nst itu tio na l m

ust er —“ [t ] he m eans e m

plo y ed m ust be suc h a s on e de sir ous of 4 ac tua lly inf

orm ing the ab se nte e m igh t re as ona bly ad opt to ac co m

pli sh it . The 5 re as ona

ble ne ss and h en ce the c onst itu tio na l va lid ity of a ny c hosen m et ho d m ay

be 6 de fen de d o n t he gr ou nd th at it is in it se lf reas on ab ly cer ta in to in fo rm th os e affe ct ed .” 7 M ullane , 339 U. S. at 315 (citations om itted). 8 { 28} N oti ce by

pub li cat io n, the n, is pr ope r in s om e ci rc um stanc es a s ala st r es ort. 9 Se e Ca m

pbe ll , 1949 -N MS C- 030, ¶ 31 (“ Co nstru ct ive se rv ic e . . . is onl y r es orte d to 1 0 f r o m n e c e s s i t y.” ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mar k s an dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) )

. I twa s n o ta l w a ys 11 so. S u rv eyi n g the histo ry of constructive service, the United State s Suprem e Court 12 ex pla ine d th at

“ in in rem or quas i in rem proceedings in which j urisdictio n wa s based 1 3 on t h e c o u rt ’ s p o w e r o v e r p r o p e rt y w i t h i n i t s t e rr i t o ry , c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e to 14 no nr es id en ts was tr ad it io na ll y un de rs to od to sat is fy

th e req ui rem en ts of d ue pro ces s.” 15 Men no ni te Bd. o

f Miss io ns v. Ada ms , 462 U
. S. 791, 796 n. 3 (1 983) ( ci tin g Shaf fer v. 16 He itner , 433 U. S. 186, 196-205 (1977)). I n in pe rs on am pr oc ee din gs, by c ontra st, due 17 process traditionallyrequired personal service to establish a state court’ s personal 18 juri sd ic ti on ov er an in di vi du al who di d n otsu bm it to juri sd ic ti on . Id

. ( ci ta tio ns19

1 om itt ed ). T his dis tin ct ion is no longe r re le vant. I n M ullane , the S uprem e Court 2 re j ec te d th e ide a tha t the r equir em en ts of due pr oc es s a s th ey

appl y to co nstru ct ive 3 s er v ice vary

depending on whether a ctions are in rem or in p er sona m . 33 9 U
. S. at 4 312; se e als o M

en noni te , 462 U
. S. a t 79 6 n. 3. 5 { 29} Mullane clarifie d, in all cases, the circum stances in which constructive not ice 6 by publ ic at i o n c o mpo rts wit h d ue pro ces s. Mullane concerned the constitut ional 7 sufficiency

of n otice of a j udicial settlem ent of a com m on trust fund account that was 8 pr ovi de d by

the tr ust ee to be ne fic ia rie s of the f und. 339 U
. S. a t 30 7. Whil e 9 be ne fi ci ar ie s pr ev iou sly ha d be en not if ie d ab out tr

ust inv es tm en ts by m ai l— as al l the 10 na m es an d ad dr es se s of be ne fi ci ar ie s fr om part ic ipa tin g e sta te s w er e co nta ine d inthe 11 bank’ s r ec or ds—

not ic e to b en ef

ic iari es about the j udi ci al se ttl em en t of the c om m on 12 tru st fu nd acco un t was effect ed so le ly t h r o u g h p ub li cat io n. Id

. a t 30 9- 10, 318

. 13 Further, the publi cation failed to identify each individu al beneficiar y or each 14 pa rti ci pa ti ng est at e o r trus t. Id

. a t 31 0. T his , the S upr em e Co urt he ld, vio la te d th e D ue 15 Pro ces s C l a u s e an d, t he refo re, co ns ti tu te d i ne ffec ti ve ser vi ce o f pr oc es s. Id

. a t 31 9 16 (“ T he statut or

y not ic e to know n bene fi ci ar ie s is inad equa te , not be ca use in fa ct it f ai ls 17 to reach e very one, but because under the circ um stances it is not reasonablycalculated 18 to reach those who could easily be inform ed by

other m eans at hand.”)

.20

1 { 30} Fo llo w ing M

ullane , in Men no ni te Boa rd o f M i ss io ns v. Ada ms , t h e S up r e me 2 Co urt he ld tha t an I ndi an a ta x sa le statut e, w hic h r equir ed not ic e to a m ortga ge e by 3 publ ication onl y , vio lated due process. 46 2 U. S. at 7 98. T he Suprem e Court held that 4 “ unless th e m ortgagee i s not reasonably identifiable, con structive notice alone does 5 not satisfy the m andate of M ullane .” Id

. T he Co urt ex pla ine d tha t “ [n ] oti ce by m ai l 6 or other m eans as cer tain to ensure actual notice i s a m inim um constitu tional 7 pr ec ondi tio n to apr oc ee din g w hic h w ill a dve rs el y a ff ec t the li be rty

or pr ope rty 8 interests of any party , w he the r unl ette re d or w el l ve rs ed in co m m er ci al pr ac tic e, if

it s 9 nam e and address are rea sonablyascertainable.” Id

. a t 80 0. 10 { 31} In light of M

ullane a nd M

en noni te , w e m ak e cl ear tha t c onstru ct ive se rv ic e of 11 pr oc es s by

pub lic at ionsa tis fi es due pr oc es s if and onl y if the na m es a nd a ddr es se s of 12 the defendants to be served are not “ reasonably ascertainable.” M

en noni te , 462 U. S. 13 at 800 ; se e a l

so S c hr oe de r v . Ci t

yo f N

. Y. , 371 U .S

. 208, 212-13 (1962) (“ The gener al 14 rule that em erges fr om the Mullane ca se is tha t no tic e by pub lic at ionis not

e noug h 15 w ithr es pe ct

to a pe rs on w hose na m e an d addr es s are kno w n or ve ry e as ily 16 as certainable . .

. .” ); M ullane , 3 3 9 U
. S

. a t 3 1 7 ( “ T h i s C o u rt h a s n o t h e s i t at edto 1 7 ap p r o v e o f r e s o rt t o p ub l i c a t i o n a s a c u s t o m a ry s ub s t i tu t e . . . w h e r e it is n ot 18 re as ona

bly pos sib le or pr ac tic ab le to give m or e ade qua te w ar nin g . . . a nd [ thi s m eans21

1 of not if ic at ion ] c re at es no c onst itu tio na l bar to a fin al de cre e fo re cl osi ng the ir 2 ri ght s. ”) ; Clark

v . L eB lan c , 1979-NMS C-034, ¶ 6, 92 N. M. 672, 593 P.2d 107 5 (“ It 3 is c le ar that du e pr oc es s pr ohi bit s the use of co nstru ct ive se rv ic e w he re it is f ea sib le 4 to g ive not ic e to the de fe ndant i n so m e m anne r m or e lik el y to bri ng the a ct ionto his 5 atte nti on. ” (c iti ng M

ullane , 339 U.S. 3 06 ))

. I n th is c as e, w e ap ply the pr inc ipl e 6 ar tic ula te d inboth Mennonite an d M ullane to de te rm ine if

c onstruc tive se rv ic e by 7 publ ic at ionsa tis fi ed

due pr oc es s and the re by

e sta bli she d th e pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n of 8 th e 1 9 4 8 d is tri ctco ur t o ve r Pl ai nt iff s’ pre de ces so rs in in te res t. Se e H arpe r v . V

a. 9 De p’t. of Tax’ n , 509 U
. S. 86, 97- 98 (19 93) (h old ing tha t un le ss the Co urt “ ‘ re se rv e[ s] 10 the questio n whether its holding shoul d be applied to th e parties bef ore it,’ ” a new 11 ru le a rt ic ula te d by

the Co urt w ill “ ap ply

r etro ac tiv el y ” (quot ing Ja m es B

. B ea m 12 D ist ill ing

Co

. v . G eo rgi a , 501 U. S. 529, 539 (199 1) (opinion of Souter, J.) ). 13 { 32} Furtherm ore, we note that the Ne w Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, both as 14 the y e xis t t oday

a nd a s th ey

e xis te d in194 8, e ff

ect ua te th e re qui re m en ts o f due 15 pr oc es s se t f

orth i n Mullane an d i ts pro ge ny. Se e, e . g. , R u l e 1

- 0 0 4 ( E ) N M RA , c o mm. 16 cm t. ( “ Ru le 1- 004( E )( 1) m ak es e xp lici t i n th e ru le the ge ne ra l t es t f or 17 co nst itutiona lly -a de qua te se rv ic e of pr oc es s e sta

bli she d in M

ullane . . . . ”)

. F or 18 ex am ple , in 1948 , the N ew Me xic o R ule of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 4( g) r equir ed aparty22

1 se ek ing to se rv e noti ce by publ ic at ion to “ ‘ fi le asw or n pl ea din g or

a ff idavit , statin g 2 tha t any

de fe ndant’ ” ha d e ith er

gon e out of

state , c onc ea le d hi m se lf

or he rs el f w ith in 3 the state, otherw ise avoided service, or that his or her nam e or place of residence are 4 un kn own . Ca m

pbe ll , 194 9- N MS C- 030, ¶ 24 ( quot ing Ru le 4( g) of

the Ru le s of

Ci vil 5 Pro ced ur e. See N MS A 1941 , § 19-1 01( 4) (g ) (V ol. 2) ). S uc h asho w ing r equir ed the 6 clerk of the c ourt to iss ue notice of the action in a publi cation in the coun ty in which 7 the ac tio n w as pe nd in g. Se e id

. Com pliance with this rule wa s “ ‘ considered as 8 sufficient notice of summ ons and v alid in la w,’” g i v ing a district court personal 9 juri sd ic ti on ov er rel ev an t d efen da nt s. Id

. (quot ing N MS A 1941 , § 19-1 01( 4) (g ) (V ol. 10 2)). W e also acknowledge that in light of M ullane , and recognized by this Court even 11 be f ore M ull ane , the e xercise of diligence and good faith to lo cate a defendant are 12 im pl ic it pre req ui si te s to effec ti ve ser vi ce o f pr oc es s b y pu bl ic at io n. Ca m

pbe ll , 194 9- 13 N MS C- 030, ¶

31 ( ci tin g N MS A 194 1, § 19 -1 01(4 )(g ) (Vol. 2) ); se e als o M ullane , 14 339 U
. S. at 31 5 (hold ing , w ithr es pe ct to known de fe ndants , that “ [t ] he m eans 15 em plo y ed m ust be suc h a s on e de sir ous of a ct ua lly inf orm ing th e ab se nte e m igh t 16 reasonably

adopt to accom

plish it”). 17 B. D ef

en da nt s’ P re de ce sso rs -i n- In te re st Ef fe ct ed S er vic e U po n P lai nt if fs ’ 18 Pr edec essors-in-Inte rest in C om pliance With the Du e P rocess Clause and 19 the Ne w Mexico R ules of C ivil Proced ure23

1 { 33} W e co nsi de r w he th er th e not ic e pr ec ed ing the 194 8 j udgm en t satis fi ed the 2 af or em en tio ne d stan dard s of due pr oc es s. P la int if

fs a lle ge that M ab el W ee be r, the ir 3 pr ed ec es sor -i n- int er es t, did not re ce ive ad equa te not ic e of the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e law sui t 4 filed by

Thom as Miller. Ther efore, they argue, the j udgm ent granting T hom as Miller 5 tit le a nd n eg at ing the W ils ons’ 1928 re se rv at ion of m ine ra l i nte re sts in the P ro pe rty 6 w as voi d a s to Ma

be l W ee be r. D ef

en dants a rg ue that P laintif fs ’ pr ed ec es sor s- in7 interest we re e ither unkno wn or m issin g in 19 48, and that the district court thu s acted 8 in c onf orm an ce w ithdue pr oc es s by auth or iz in g co nstru ct ive se rv ic e of pr oc es s on 9 Mabel W eeber. De fendants point out that both Thom as Miller and the Sher iff of S an 10 Juan C ounty

a ff irm at ive ly

state d in194 8 th at

the y c oul d no t a sc er

ta in thr ough 11 dil ige nt e ff

ort the ad dr es se s or

pla ce s of r es ide nc e fo r ce rt ai n de fe ndants na m ed in the 12 co m pla int , inc lud ing Ma

bel Weebe r. Acco rd in gl y , Defen da nt s asse rt tha t c onst ru ct ive 13 service by publ ication in th e Times Hustler , a local Far m ingto n newspaper, satisfied 14 due pr oc es s. 15 { 34} The sum

m ary j udgm ent granted to Def endants by the district court was based 16 uponthe r ec om

m en da tio ns o f the spe ci al m as te r, w ho i n r ea ch ing his de ci sio n be low 1 7 d i s t i n g u i s h e dt h e i n s t a n tc a s e f r o m M ullane . I n M

ullane , the tr

ustee had the nam es 18 an d a ddr es se s of the be ne fi ci ar ie s on its book s, an d it had use d m ai l t o c om m uni cate24

1 w ith the be ne fi ci ar ie s in the pas t. Inc ontra st t o M ullane , the district court deter m ined 2 tha t “ the re is nothin g to ind ic at e tha t T hom as Mu lle r ha d in fo rm at ionr eg ar din g 3 Ma be l W ee be r’ s w he re ab out s or that he r w he re ab out s co ul d be ide nti fi ed thr ough 4 reasonable diligence.” W e agre e. 5 { 35} W e b egin b y

e xam i ni ng t he r e c or d of t he 1 94 8 di str i c t

c ourtp r oc e e di ng s. It 6 reveals that the district co u rt h ad before it a verified com

plaint and sh eriff

’ s return 7 spe ci fi ca lly

ind ic at ing that, a ft er dil ige nt se ar ch an d inquir y , Pl ai nti ff

s’ pr ed ec es sor s8 in-i nt eres t c oul d no t be loc at ed a nd p er sona lly

se rv ed w ithpr oc es s. T he c om

pla int 9 contains two specific allegations necessary to authorize notice by publ ication und er 1 0 Ru le 4 ( g )

. F i r s t , t h e c o m p l a i n ta l l e g e s t h a td e f

e n d a n t s l i v i n g , o r

i f d e c e a s e d , t h e ir 11 unkn own heirs, at som e tim e m ade a claim of interest in the Property , and “ that after 12 dil ige nt searc h and inqu ir y ” “ the P la int if

f ha s be enuna

ble to le ar

n or de te rm ine the 13 na m es , p la ces of res id en ce, Po st Offi ce ad dr es se s an d whe reab ou ts [of th e u nk no wn 14 heirs of any

dec e ased defendants] .” Sec ond, the com plaint cont ains the allegation th at 15 if an y defe ndants w er e sti ll liv ing a nd r es idi ng i n N ewMe xic o th ey c oul d no t be 16 loc at ed

be ca use the y ha d se cr et ed

the m se lv es so tha t pe rs ona l se rv ic e of pr oc es s 17 co ul d n ot be effe ct ed

. See NMS A 1941, § 19-101(4)(g) (V ol. 2). 18 { 36} Thus, in 1 94 8, J ud so n a nd E va W i l so n w e r e d e c e a se d, M abe l W i l so n had25

1 m ar ri ed a nd w en t by

the na m e of W eeber , a nd tha t m ar ri ed na m e— an d in 2 co nj unc tio n, her a dd res s u nd er t ha t n am e—wa s u nk no wn. In ord er t o p ers on al ly serv e 3 Mabel W ilson with process, Thom as Miller would have been required to ascerta in her 4 ne wna m e an d cur

re nt addre ss by fi rs t ass um ing tha t Mab el sti ll liv ed in San D ie go, 5 based on th e sale of t h e Prop erty twe nty y ears e arlier to his b rother, David Miller. 6 Ne xt, T hom as Miller w ould also have needed to acquire and searc h through the San 7 Diego City

Dir ectory

from either 19 26 or 1 930 to find Juds on and Eva W ilson ’ s San 8 D ie go ad dr es s. T he n, in or de r to ide nti fy Ma be l W ils on a s M ab el W ee be r, he w oul d 9 h av e b ee n re qu i re dt o s ea rc h t h ro u g h Sa n D i eg o ’s p ub l i c r ec o rd s fo r E v a Wi l s o n ’s 10 de ath c er

tif ic at e w hic h nam ed

he r daught er Ma be l W ee be r as he r inf orm an t, or 11 al te rn at ive ly , he w oul d have be en re qui re d to sif t thr oughtw en ty

y ears of S anD ie go 12 U ni onn e w sp ape r

o bi tuary n ot i c e s i n or de r

t o f i nd E va W i l so n’ s ob i tuary

w hi ch 13 na m ed

Ma be l W ee be r as the daught er she le ft be hin d. T o ge t tha t f

ar a lon g inthe 14 se ar chf

or Ma be l W ee be r, T hom as Mi lle r w oul d have be enr equir ed to inf er f ro m the 1 5 19 2 8 d e e d t h e e x a c t f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n J u d s o n , E v a , a n d M ab el W ils on 16 (f athe r, m oth er , a nd d au ght er ). P la int if fs r el y upo n th is l ab y rin th t o le ad to the 17 dis co ve ry

of Ma be l W ils on, an d the y as k us to c onc lud e tod ay that be ca use thi s pa th 18 wa s ostensi bly

available an d s i n ce Mabel W ilson wa s not lo cated back then that26

1 Mi lle r fa ile d to m ak e a dil ige nt i nqui ry int o he r w he re ab out s. 2 { 37} W e ind

ulg e al l r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s inP la int if

fs ’ favor an d c onc lud e tha t the 3 dil ige nc e tha t w as ne ce ssary to loc at e Ma be l W ils on ba ck in 1948 did not r equir e thi s 4 le ve l of

e ff ort or inv es tig at ion , part ic ularl y in lig ht o f the f

ac ts, c ir cu m stanc es a nd 5 resources available in 1948. T oday , w ith relatively easy acce ss to th e internet, social 6 m ed ia , a nd num er ous glo ba l se ar che ngi ne s, i t is of te n no t di ff

ic ult to fi nd p er sons 7 w hose ide nti ty

a nd w he re ab out s are ne ce ssary to ef fectu at e pe rs ona l se rv ic e of 8 proc es s. T he w or ld w as qui te dif fe re nt i n 19 48 i n th is r eg ar d. A t the ti m e, the ta sk 9 w oul d have und oubt edly b ee n si gni fi cantl y m or e one ro us and t im e co nsum ing

. 10 Furthe r, the f

ai lur e to f ind Ma be l W ee be r w as not

ips o f acto ev idenc e of

ala ck of 1 1 d i l i g en ce u n d erRu l e 4 (g ) in 1 9 4 8 . W e co n cl u d e th at t h e f ac t s p re m i s ed o n Mi l l er ’s 1 2 v er i fi ed co m

p l ai n tan dt h e s h er i ff

’s re tu rn o f s er v i ce s up p o rt t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 13 co nc lus ion“ tha t af

te r dil ige nt s earc h and i nqui ry the pos t of

fi ce a ddr es se s, pla ce s of 14 re sid en ce , a nd w he re ab out s of a ll of the D ef

en dants he re in

. . . a ll ar e unkn ow n, ” an d, 15 thus, Mabel W ilson ’ s where abouts were not rea dily ascertainable. 16 { 38} U nde r the f

ed er al pr ec ed en t i nte rp re tin g du e pr oc es s r equir em en ts i n th e 17 context of constructiv e service of p rocess, we conclude that the const ructive notice 18 giv enin the und er ly ing cas e w as suf fi ci en tly “ re as ona bly c al cu la te d” und er

the27

1 ci rcu m st an ces as t he y

ex is te d i n 1 94 8. M

ullane , 339 U
. S. a t 31 4; se e als o M en noni te , 2 462 U. S

. a t7 99

- 80 0. W i t ho ut a dd i t i on a l e vi de nc e i n t he r e c or d t hatr e ve a l s am ore 3 direct path towar d Mabel’ s identityand wher eabouts i n 1948 , w e re j ect Pla intiffs 4 the or y that, on i ts f

ac e, the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e j udgm en t wa s pre m ise d up on an ob vio us 5 la ckof d il ig en ce o n t he pa rt o f Mi ll er. 6 C . P lai nt if

fs F ail t o Moun t a S uc ce ssf ul C oll at er al A tt ac k

on t he 194 8 7 Judgm ent 8 { 39} Our c onclusi on that th e re cord before the 1948 district c ourt did not reveal an 9 obvi ous la ck

of dil ige nc e to suppo rt a col la te ra l att ac k find s su ppor t i n othe r co urts 10 tha t a lso ha ve be en ca lle d upon to co nsi de r the re as ona ble ne ss of

the se ar che ff

orts 11 m ad e in a

pr ior , und er ly ing c as e. I n addi tio n to the a lle ga tio ns i n th e re co rd , w e m ust 12 co nsi de r the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the e ff

orts m ad e by

T hom as Mi ller

in the se ar chf

or 13 Mab el W ee be r. I n de te rm ini ng the va lid ity of the c oll at er al a tta ck

on the 194 8 14 j udgm ent in this regar d, w e refrain fr om rely ing on speculation. Furtherm ore, 15 re ga rd in g th e re as ona ble ne ss o f the se ar chMi lle r w oul d have ne ed ed to m ak e to 16 ascerta in Mabel W ilson ’ s where abouts, we note that other courts have held that even 17 “ a se ar chof

the c onve y an ce re co rd s to ide nti fy part ie s w ithm ine ra l i nte re sts w oul d 18 be und

uly bur de nsom e” an d, in suc h ca se s, co nstru ct ive not ic e m ay be “ suf fi ci en t t o 19 satisfy

the requi rem ents of due process.” D av is O il Co

. v . M ill s , 873 F
. 2d 7 74, 79128

1 (5 th C ir

. 198 9) ; see also A arco Oil & Gas Co. v. EO G R es. I nc. , 20 So. 3d 6 62, 669

- 2 670 (Miss. 2009 ). 3 { 40} Fo r ex am

ple , in D av is O il , the hold er of a m ineral lease soug ht to in validate a 4 j udicial sale of land on du e process g rounds because h e was never given actual notice 5 of the sale. 873 F.2d at 775. Still, the Fifth Circuit determ ined that constructive no tice 6 sa tis fi ed

the r equir em en ts o f due pr oc es s be ca use ase ar chof

the c onve y an ce r ec or ds 7 wou ld be un du ly cum

be rs om e. Id

. a t 78 9. T he f

ed er al c ourt of

appe al s e xpl ai ne d: 8 [W ] e d o not cons true Mennonite as re qui ri ng ac tua l not ic e to ev er y party 9 who ha s a publ ic ly re co rd ed int er es t in the subj ec t pr ope rty . . . . 10 Ac cordingly , the r easonablenes s o f constructive no tice in a particular 11 ca se m ay

tur n on th e na tur e of

the pr ope rty

int er es t a t st ak e an d th e 12 re la tiv e ea se or dif fi cu lty of ide nti fy ing suc h in te re st h old ers fr om the 13 land r ec or ds and a lso the e xis te nc e of a lte rn at ive m eans o f ins ur ing the 14 rece ipt of noti ce. 15 Id

. at 7 9 0 (c i t at ions o m itted). T he D av is O il court noted, m oreover, that the lessee 16 the re e as ily

c oul d have a ssured ac tua l no tic e of the sa le by

pay ing anom ina l f

ee to 17 pl ace h is na m e an d ad dr es s o n fi le in th e m or tg ag e rec or ds

. Id

. a t 79 0- 91. Whil e the 18 le sse e did

not w ai ve his due pr oc es s r igh ts b y fa ili ng to pla ce his na m e an d a ddr es s 19 on file, the availabilityof a m eans to protect his property interest inform ed whether 20 his iden t i t y

wa s reasonably

ascertainable and, hence, whether due process required 21 act ua l n ot ic e. Id

. a t 78 -9 0.29

1 { 41} Mor e re ce ntl y , in A arc o O il , the M i s s i ssipp i Suprem e Court held that 2 co nstru ct ive not ic e by publ ic at ion as to ow ne rs of m ine ra l i nte re sts r eg ar din g a194 2 3 ta x sa le did no t violate the ir due pr oc es s r igh ts. 20 S o. 3d at 67 0. I n th at c as e, the 4 pla int if fs a tta ck ed

the va lid ity

of the 194 2 ta x sa le be ca

use the co unty

c ondu ct ing the 5 tax sale did not provide notice to the then-m ineral owner s, “ either by m ail or personal 6 service, i n v i o l at ion of federal and state due process requirem ents.” Id

. a t 66 7. T he 7 pla int if fs c ont en de d th at

the statut or ily -r eq

uir ed ne w spa pe r not ic es of

the sa le a nd 8 “ not ic e to the sur fa ce ow ne rs [ onl y ] w as ins uf fi ci en t t o sa tis fy

the due pr oc es s r igh ts 9 o f t he m ineral owner s.” Id

. a t6 6 8

. T h e M i s s i s s i p p i S up r e m e C o u rtd i s a g re ed , 10 explainin g that und er M en noni te a nd M

ullane , a governm ental bodyis not ob ligated 11 to underta ke e xtr ao rd inary e ff orts t o di sc ove r the ide nti ty a nd whe re ab out s of

a ll 12 in te re s t e d p art ie s t o t he sal e. Id

. ( ci tin g M

en noni te , 462 U
. S. a t 79 5; M ullane , 339 13 U
. S. at 314)

. T he Co urt a ddi tio na lly not ed that the pla int if

fs ’ pr ed ec es sor s c oul d have 14 pr ote ct ed

the ir int er es ts by en sur ing the ir se ve re d m ine ra l i nte re st w as se parate ly 15 as se ss edfortax es . Id

. a t 67 0. T he Co urt c onc lud ed that “be ca

use the ide nti ty

a nd 16 w he re ab out s of

the ow ne rs of

the se ve re d m ine ra l i nte re sts w er e not r ea dil y 17 as ce rt ai nable , pub lic at iona nd n oti ce to the sur fa ce ow ne rs [ onl y ] w er e suf fi ci en t t o 18 satisfy

due process.” Id

. a t 67 0.30

1 { 42} T he c onc lus ion s r ea ch ed in A arc o O il , a nd D av is O il —that pub lication no tice 2 af fo rd ed a de qua te due pr oc es s ontho se f ac ts— ar e equa lly

appl ic ab le to the 194 8 3 j udgm en t i n th is c as e. H er e, a lth oughnot dis posi tiv e in o ur a na ly sis , the ow ne rs of 4 the m ineral estate at the tim e o f th e 1 948 j udgm ent easily could have assured actual 5 not ic e of

the sa le by

takin g som e care to p ro te ct the ir inv es tm en t. N ei the r Juds on n or 6 E vaW ils on h ad

m ad e a re co rd

of the ir ow ne rs hip int er es ts in pro ba te f oll ow ing the ir 7 deaths, and Mabel W ilson took n o action durin g her lifetim e to ensure an address w as 8 on r ec or d inthe c ounty w he re the P ro pe rty

w as loc at ed

. Whil e not

ne ce ssary

to 9 pr ote ct one ’ s in te re st, w e co nsi de r tho se f ac ts p er sua siv e to o ur i nstan t ana ly sis of 10 w he the r Mi lle r co uld ha ve dis co ve re d the W ils ons’ w he re ab out s w ithr ea sona ble 11 dil ige nc e. Mi lle r, m or eo ve r, w as unde r no oblig at ion to c om b S anD ie go r ec or ds t o 12 ide ntify in di vi dua ls who m igh t a ppe ar to ha ve a n in te re st i n th e Pr ope rty a nd w ho 13 we re not rea sonable ascertainable. 14 { 43} As has been the case in other j urisdictio ns, and in line with the relevant fe deral 15 pr ec ed en t i n Mennonite an dM ullane , w e aga in con cl ude that the re w as not ar ea dil y 16 ap pare nt l ac k of

dil ige nc e by

Mi lle r in s earc hin g for

Ma be l W ils on’ s w he re ab out s. 17 Mabel Wilson’ s address was not in any of the original deeds, and she had changed her 18 na m e by

the ti m e of

the 194 8 act io n. Pl us, she did not e xe rc ise ow ne rs hip in the31

1 Property

betwee n 192 8 and 194 8, and w as only one of m any potential in terest holders 2 na m ed a s de fe ndants in Mi lle r’ s c om pla int

. I n li ght of tho se f

ac ts, it is ap pare nt f

ro m 3 the record in the 1948 j udgm ent that Mabel W ilson wa s not asce rtainable. Nor can 4 w e co nc lud e fr om

the r ec or d f

ac ts b ef or e us tha t M ill er

w as not dil ige nt in s earc hin g 5 for her wher eabouts. As such, under guid ing precedent, we cannot c onclud e that there 6 w as avio la tio n of

Ma be l W ils on’ s du e pr oc es s. A n a bse nc e of j ur isd ic tio n is thus no t 7 apparent from

the fac e of the 1948 judgm ent, so the j udgm ent wa s valid w ith respect 8 to P lain ti ffs ’ pr ed ec es sor s- in- int er es t. P la int if fs thu s f ai l t o c ar ry the ir bur de n in 9 re spon se to D ef

en dant’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, e lim ina tin g th ei r cl ai m to 10 title in the m ineral interests presently at issue. 11 { 44} Furthe r unde rl y ing that c onc lus ionis the im portanc e w e m

ust ac co rd to f

ina lity 12 in the context o f court j udgm ents. The dispo sition of a controversy before a court has 13 far re ac hin g c onse que nc es be y on d th e p ar t i e s i n s t an t l y

a f f e c t e d

. Q uie t t itl e j udgm en ts, 14 in p ar tic ular, c ontri but e to the e ff ic ie nt k ee pin g of land o w ne rs hip r ec or ds, a nd a s th e 15 L an dm en ’ s A sso ci at iona m ic us b ri ef state d, a re “ the be dr oc k of the tho usands of land 16 an d m ine ra l transa ct ion s whic h take pla ce e ac h y ear an d w hic h inv olv e ev er y ty pe of 1 7 la nd t r a n s a c t i o n f

r o m a c o up l e b u y i n g t h e i r f i r s t h o m e t o a n o i l a n d g a s c om pa ny 18 spe ndi ng m ill ion s of

dol lars to ac qui re le as eh old a cr ea ge . ” Inf

ac t, it is co m m on32

1 pr ac tic e fo r landm en

a nd t itl e ex am ine rs to re ly upon c ounty

r ec or ds and r eg ularl y 2 entered j udgm ents where a quiet title decree establishes the chain of title. S uch quiet 3 tit le j udgm en ts p ro vid e the ce rt ai nty ne ed ed to en sur e tha t on e is the r ec or d ow ne r of 4 pr ope rty

in N ewMe xic o to the e xc lus ionof oth er s. 5 { 45} T his Co urt ha s sa id th at “ [j ] udi ci al de ci sio ns, a ff ec tin g ti tle to re al e sta te 6 pr es um pti ve ly a cquir ed in re lianc e uponsuc h de ci sio ns, sho uld not be dis tur be d or 7 departed from

except for the m ost cogent reasons, certainly not because of doub ts as 8 to th ei r so un dn es s.” Duncan v. Brown , 1914-NMS C-013, ¶ 9, 18 N. M
. 5 7 9 , 139 P. 9 140; see also Bogle Farm s v B aca , 1996 -N MS C- 051, ¶ 26, 122 N
. M. 422 , 925 P
. 2d 10 1184

. T ha t re as oni ng stil l rin gs tr ue in pre se nt tim es , an d is in part pr ote ct ed

by the 11 showing of proo f needed in order to establish a valid collateral attac k up o n a q uiet 12 title judgm ent. W ithou t evidence on the face of a quiet title j udgm ent that the district 13 co urt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n, that j udgm en t m ust be ac co rd ed fi na lity in a cc or danc e w ith 14 the reliance interests crea ted as a cons equence o f th e q uieting of the title in its owner. 15 { 46} W e thus c onclud e that the high standard f or successfully

m ount ing a collateral 16 attack on this record is insu rm ount able in the instant ca s e. Beca use we hold that 17 Pl ai nti ff

s’ sui t c onst itu te s an im

pr ope r co llate ra l a tta ck

on the va lid ity

of the 194 8 18 j udgm en t, w e nee d not a ddr es s w he the r the r ec or d a lso sup ports a f ind ing of la ch es ,33

1 w ai ve r, or

e sto ppe l. 2 V. CON CLU SION 3 { 47} The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y fou nd th atth e su it bro ug ht by T.H. McEl va in , et al ., 4 co nst itu te d an im

pr ope r co llate ral a tta ck

on the 194 8 j udgm en t qu ie tin g ti tle in 5 D ef en da nts’ pr ed eces so rs -in -in te res t. Co ns tru ct iv e se rv ic e b y pu bl ic at io n o f the 194 8 6 pr oc ee din gs s at is fied th e due pr oc es s of P la int if fs ’ pr ed ec es sor s- in- int er es t; 7 ac co rd ing ly , the 194 8 qu ie t t itl e j udgm en t i s no t vo id. T he j udgm en t of the Co urt of 8 Appe al s i s re ve rs ed , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de rs qui et ing ti tle to the P ro pe rty in 9 G ro up 1 a nd G ro up 2 D ef en dants , an d granti ng sum m ar y j udgm en t in f

av or of sa id 10 D ef en dants , a ff

irm ed

. 11 { 48} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice 14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 16 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice34

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 4 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice
5 P ET R A JIM EN EZ

M A ES , Ju st ic e, d iss en ti ng .35

1 MA ES, Sen ior Justice ( dissenting). 2 { 49} I r es pe ct fu lly

dis se nt f ro m the m aj or ity ’ s opini on and ad opt in fu ll the opi nio n 3 of th e Co ur t o f App eal s, T. H

. M cE lv ain O il & G as Ltd . P’s hip v. B en son- M ont in4 G re er D ril lin g C

orp. , 2015 -N MCA -004, 340 P. 3d 1277, as m y dissent

. I find there 5 was am

pl e ev ide nc e an d no ne ed to spe cu la te that the 194 8 j udgm en t w as voi d 6 because the Millers failed to und ertake a good faith eff

ort to provid e the W ilson heirs 7 sufficient notice of suit. T he evidence presented shows that with m inim al diligence 8 on the part

of T hom as Mi lle r, the loc at ionof Ma be l W ee be r (n ée W ils on) w oul d have 9 been discovered. In fact, Ms. W eeber’ s location m ay have alre ady

been known by

Mr. 10 Mi lle r. T he w ar

ranty de ed co nve y ing the pr ope rty to D av id Mil le r, an d the w ar ranty 11 de ed gr an tin g Ju dson , E va , a nd M ab el W ils on j oin t ten an cy w ithr igh t of sur viv or shi p 12 both in dic at ed

the part ie s w ere f

ro m S anD ie go, Ca lif

or nia

. E ve n w iththi s 13 inf orm at ion , Mr
. Mi lle r onl y post ed not ic e of sui t i n aN ewMe xic o ne w spa pe r an d 14 the she ri ff

onl y se ar ch ed S anJuan C ounty , N ewMe xic o f or the W ils ons. I t i s no t a 15 stretch of logic to assum e a diligent plainti ff w ould take the extra step to post notice 16 of s uit i n aS a n D i e go n e w sp ape r o r a tl e a st l oo k t o ar e si de nt

l i st i ng i n so uthern 17 California w ith the i n fo rm ation provi ded on th e deeds. In sum , I believe the rec ord 18 show s th e noti ce pr ovi de d to Ma be l W ee be r w as not

c onst itu tio na lly

a de qua te , thu s36

1 m ak ing the qui et tit le a ct ionsub j ec t t o c oll at er al a tta ck

. T he not ic e an d th e qui et ti tle 2 ac tio n sh oul d be voi d a s to he r de sc en dants . 3 { 50} Furtherm ore, I m ust note I do no t believe Mullane v. Cent. H anover Bank & 4 Tr ust Co

. , 339 U
. S. 306 , 314 ( 1950 ) pr es en ts an is sue r el at ed to thi s c as e. T houg h 5 M u l l a ne es t ablished a heigh tened standard for service by publi cation, the N ew 6 Me xic o no tic e sta tut e fr om 194 8 co m

porte d w ith M

ullane and therefore we require 7 no analy sis as to the retroactive ef fect of the case. 8 { 51} A s th e m aj or ity st ate s and I a gr ee , “ a pla int if f m ust und er ta ke adil ige nt and 9 good faith effort t o locate defendants and serve them personally

with notice.” T. H. 10 M cE lv ain O il & G as Lt d. P’ shi p v . B en son-

M ont in- G re er

D ril lin g C

orp. , 201 6- 11 N MS C-

____ , ¶ 26, ___ P. 3d _ __, c iti ng Ca m

pbe ll v. D ohe rty , 194 9-NMS C-030, ¶¶ 12 27, 30-31, 53 N. M. 280, 206 P. 2d 1145. If personal se rvice is not possib le, plaintiffs 13 ha ve the opt ionof

a lte rn at ive se rv ic e, in thi s ca se se rv ic e by pub lic at ion

. N oti ce by 14 publ ication is no t available thoug h if a plaintiff has not fir st m ade a good faith effort 15 to find the respon dents in th e plaintiff’ s case. The requirem ent for go od faith eff ort 16 can be foun d in the service by publ ication rule in effe ct i n 1948 , which stated no tice 17 by pub lic at ion , e ff

ec tua te d by the co urt cl er

k, co uld be m ad e w he n a“ due inquir y a nd 18 se ar chha s be enm ad e” by the pla int if

f, an d plai nti ff ha s fil ed a sw or n a ff idavit statin g37

1 as m uc h. Ru le 4(g ) of

th e Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. See N MS A 194 1, § 19 -1 01( 4) (g ) 2 (V ol. 2)

. I n M

ullane the U. S. Suprem e Cou rt t o o k issu e w ith the NewYork notice 3 by pub lic at ionstatut e, w hic h di d no t re qui re na m ing of e ac h de fe ndant i n th e pe ndi ng 4 case, “ [t] hus th e only

notice re q u i red, and the onlyone given, wa s by newspaper 5 p ub l i c a t i o n s e t t i n g f

o rt h me r e l y t h e n a me a n d a d d r e s s o f t h e t r u s tc o mp a n y, t h e n a me 6 an d th e da te of es ta

bli shm en t of the co m

m on tr ust fund, an d a lis t of al l part ic ipa tin g 7 estates, trus t s or funds.” M ullane , 339 U
. S. a t 31 0. T he c om pany m ad e not ic e thi s 8 w ay de spi te ha vin g kn ow le dg e of the nam es a nd a ddr es se s of e ve ry pe rs on “ w ho 9 w o u l db e e n t i t l e dt o s h a r e i n t h e p r i n c i p a l ” o f t h e t ru s t i f i t w e r e t o b e c o me 10 di st rib ut ab le

. Id . T he Court found the trust com pany shoul d have served all parties 1 1 b y m a i l

. “ Wh e r e t h e n a mes a n dp o s to f f i c e a d d r e s s e s o f t h o s e a f f e c t e db y a 12 pr oc ee din g are a t hand, the r ea sons dis ap pe ar fo r re sort to m eans le ss lik el y than th e 13 m ails to a

pprise them

of its pendency .” Id

. a t 31 8. I n a ddi tio n, the Co urt a lso f ound 14 the N ew Y ork sta tut e vio la te d the due pr oc es s c lause of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t 15 be ca use the not ic e ru le w as not “ re as ona bly ca lc ula te d to re ac h tho se who co uld 16 easily be inform ed by

other m eans at hand.” Id . at 3 19

. 17 { 52} Inc ontra st, the N ewMe xic o 19 48 r ule r equir ed

not ic e by

pub lic at ionto 18 include “ the nam es of the plaintiff and defendant to the cause, or if there is m ore than38

1 one de fe ndant t o th e ca use the not ic e sha ll co nta in the na m e of sa id pla int if

f an d th e 2 na m e of the fi rs t of sa id d ef en dants , ” w hic h onit s f

ac e ap pe ar s to c om

port w iththe 3 M ullane ruling. NM SA1941 , § 19-101(4)(g) (V ol. 2). Furtherm ore, as stated ear lier, 4 thi s ty pe of not ic e is o nly

a va ila ble a ft er the pla int if

f ha s sw or

n inastate m en t the 5 pla int if f w as una ble to fi nd the r es pond en t by other m ean s. P re se ntl y , the re is no 6 co nf lic t betw ee n the N ewMe xic o st at ute a nd the f

ind ing s in M

ullane , as it appears 7 N ewMe xic o w as a he ad of the c urve in pr es er

vin g du e p ro ces s rig hts thr oughthe ir 8 notice statute.

9 10 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice