Court Opinion

ID: 9613224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:15:20.098388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:26.897332
License: Public Domain

PAYNE and FEDERICI, Justices (concurring in part and dissenting in part). We dissent as to Part II of the opinion in that it applies the “due-on-sale” law (§§ 48-7-11 through 48-7-14, N.M.S.A.1978 (Cum.Supp.1981) to mortgages executed prior to March 15, 1979 but not assigned until after that date. We feel the majority holding impermissively infringes on the right to contract. We concur in the other portions of the opinion which holds that the Attorney General has standing to bring the action in this suit and that the “due-on-sale” law is constitutional as it applies to mortgages that arise after its effective date.