Court Opinion

ID: 9847900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:09:30.640811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:45.132869
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. I cannot agree with the majority that the circumstances were such as to put the Oteros on constructive notice of the existence of the sewer line. . the purchaser of property may assume that no easements are attached to the property purchased which are not of record except those which are open and visible, and he cannot otherwise be bound with notice. There should be such a connection between the use and the thing as to suggest to the purchaser that the one estate is servient to the other. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Cantrell, 56 N.M. 184 at 190, 241 P.2d 1209 at 1213 (1952). The facts in this case do not support the inference that the Oteros had constructive notice of the existence of the sewer line. While the appearance of the adjoining Pacheco property was such as to suggest that it was connected to a sewer line, there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was in any way apparent that it, at one time, had been necessary to lay such a line under the Oteros’ land. The history of the development of the sewer system in the area is not apparent to the average purchaser, and the Oteros were justified in assuming that the Pachecos’ sewer connections did not impinge on the property rights of the surrounding landholders. I would reverse.