Court Opinion

ID: 9791658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:15:34.37657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.786162
License: Public Domain

OPINION TACKETT, Justice. Plaintiffs sued in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, to eject defendants from lands situate in the Village of Ensenada. Defendants answered, denying the allegations of the complaint and filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title to the lands in their favor. After trial without a jury, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants appealed. Appellants rely on four points for reversal, all of which are challenges to the trial court’s findings of fact.  We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the proceedings and the findings of fact made by the trial court and, in our view, the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Davis v. Padilla, 79 N.M. 753, 449 P.2d 661 (1969).  We said in Galvan v. Miller, 79 N.M. 540, 445 P.2d 961 (1968), that substantial evidence is relevant evidence acceptable to a reasonable mind.  We have repeatedly held that findings of fact that have substantial support in the evidence (as in the case before us) will not be disturbed on appeal. Hamilton v. Doty, 71 N.M. 422, 379 P.2d 69 (1962); Gould v. Brown Construction Company, 75 N.M. 113, 401 P.2d 100 (1965).  The evidence must be viewed by us in its most favorable light in support of the findings. If the evidence when so viewed, including the reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the findings, then all contrary evidence must be disregarded. McCauley v. Ray, 80 N.M. 171, 453 P.2d 192 (1968); Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 438 P. 2d 153 (1968); Rein v. Dvoracek, 79 N.M. 410, 444 P.2d 595 (Ct.App.1968). Appellants’ contentions are without merit. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur.