2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 49 - Land Grants › Article 2 - Corporations for Management of Community Land Grants › Section 49-2-2 - Corporate powers enumerated.

They shall be bodies corporate and politic under the respective names designated in the decrees by which they were incorporated, and shall have and possess the following powers:
A. to sue and be sued in their corporate names;
B. to sell, convey, lease, mortgage or otherwise dispose of so much of the land of the grant under their management and control as is held in common by the owners and proprietors.
Provided, however, that no sale of the lands held in common can be made to persons who are nonheirs of the grant unless a majority of such heirs present at a mass meeting to be called fifteen (15) days in advance thereof by the president of the board of trustees vote in favor of any proposed sale to nonheirs, and provided, further, that no lease of the lands held in common can be made to any person whatsoever for a period of time exceeding twenty (20) years; provided, further, nevertheless, that as to any oil and gas lease executed upon lands held in common where oil and gas or either of them in commercial quantities is being, or shall be, produced from lands covered by said lease, then and in such event, this limitation as to the period of time shall not apply as to any such oil and gas lease so long as oil or gas or either of them is being produced in commercial quantities from said land;
C. to make such rules and regulations, not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States or the state of New Mexico, as may be necessary for the protection, improvement and management of such common lands and real estate and the use and enjoyment thereof, and of the common waters thereon;
D. to make such assessments against the owners and proprietors as may be necessary to defray the expenses of conducting the business, and to make any other obligations of said corporation and to enforce the payment thereof by such owners and proprietors by suit against any owner and proprietor brought in the name of the corporation before a justice of the peace [magistrate court] or in the district court of the county in which such land grant is situated;
E. to have a corporate seal in such form and device as shall be adopted by the board of trustees of such corporation;
F. to determine the number of animals that may be permitted to graze upon the common lands of the grant, and the price which shall be paid to [by] the owner of such animals for the privilege of grazing thereon, provided, such price shall be uniform to all owners and proprietors;
G. by district court action under rules of civil procedure to determine by name the various persons who are of the class of owners and proprietors having beneficial interest in land of the grant under their management and control, and to determine persons of the class who are eligible to become owners and proprietors by descent from the class who were determined to be the owners thereof at the time of the incorporation of such grant.
History:
Laws 1917, ch. 3, § 2; C.S. 1929, § 29-202; Laws 1933, ch. 47, § 1; 1939, ch. 109, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 9-202; 1953 Comp., § 8-2-2; Laws 1961, ch. 158, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material.
— The bracketed word "by" in Subsection F was inserted by the secretary of state.
The office of justice of the peace was abolished, and the jurisdiction, powers and duties were transferred to the magistrate court.
See
35-1-38 NMSA 1978.
Constitutional violation by planned distribution.
— The plan of distribution of community grant land proposed disclosed a pronounced absence of primary and elemental concepts of due process and equal protection of the laws, in violation of constitutional guaranties existing in favor of owners of the beneficial interest in the common lands of the grant, where interests in the land were to be determined by drawings in a lottery and where it was uncertain how it was to be determined by the special master, who were the owners of beneficial interests in the common lands eligible for participation in the lottery.
Armijo v. Town of Atrisco
, 1957-NMSC-045, 62 N.M. 440, 312 P.2d 91.
Distribution plan contrary to law.
— The means to be employed for making a distribution of the lands of the grant not only amounted to a violation of the statute law of this state prohibiting lotteries, but as well amounted to a dissipation of the assets of the corporation, contrary to law, where interests in land were to be determined by drawings in a lottery and where it was uncertain how it was to be determined by the special master, who were the owners of beneficial interests in the common lands eligible for participation in the lottery.
Armijo v. Town of Atrisco
, 1957-NMSC-045, 62 N.M. 440, 312 P.2d 91.
Grant land held not tax exempt.
— The lands within the community grant of the town of Tome, incorporated under Laws 1897, ch. 86 (now repealed) and 2148 through 2184, 1897 Comp., were not exempt from taxation under N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 7.
Board of Trustees v. Sedillo
, 1922-NMSC-027, 28 N.M. 53, 210 P. 102).
Presumption is that public officials perform their duties.
Davis v. Westland Dev. Co.
, 1970-NMSC-039, 81 N.M. 296, 466 P.2d 862.
Lack of standing in quiet title suit.
— Where a land grant association's board of trustees had not called an election by its members or the trustees as required by law and had not identified the persons having an interest in the lands claimed by the association who had a right to vote at an election and the treasurer had not furnished a surety bond, the association lacked standing as a land grant community or board to assert a claim of title to lands at issue in a suit to quiet title.
Cordova v. Broadbent
, 1988-NMSC-042, 107 N.M. 215, 755 P.2d 59.
Irrelevant proof as to deed.
— Proof that deeds relied upon by grantees of town property were signed by different people and that grantees were not heirs of land grant was irrelevant on question of forgery and inadequacy of description.
Davis v. Westland Dev. Co.
, 1970-NMSC-039, 81 N.M. 296, 466 P.2d 862.
Valid heirs hold title as tenants in common.
— All the valid heirs to a community land grant are considered to hold title as tenants in common.
Apodaca v. Tome Land & Improvement Co.
, 1978-NMSC-018, 91 N.M. 591, 577 P.2d 1237.
If property is common land of a land grant, the parties who are valid heirs of the land grant may hold the property as tenants in common with the board of trustees.
Cebolleta Land Grant ex rel. Bd. of Trustees v. Romero
, 1982-NMSC-043, 98 N.M. 1, 644 P.2d 515.
Distribution of proceeds of sale.
— Once a town relinquishes its proprietary interest in the common lands by virtue of a sale, the proceeds must necessarily be divided proportionately among the rightful heirs.
Apodaca v. Tome Land & Improvement Co.
, 1978-NMSC-018, 91 N.M. 591, 577 P.2d 1237.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Lands §§ 58, 113 to 121.
73B C.J.S. Public Lands § 178.