Court Opinion

ID: 9558840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:17:50.225463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:37.833720
License: Public Domain

CHAVEZ, Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with the reasoning and holding of the majority opinion except for the affirmanee of the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim to the Rowe Mesa tract for lack of venue. The majority holds that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Section 38-3-1 (D)(2), because the Rowe Mesa tract is not contiguous to a tract that is located in part in San Miguel County. I find the evidence is to the contrary. First, I disagree that the Rowe Mesa tract should be considered separate from the Matías Encinias tract. Although not entirely clear, it appears that the original tract conveyed by Matías Encinias to Tranquilino consisted of 320 acres. This 320 acres, known as the Matías Encinias tract, included the Rowe Mesa tract. As a consequence, the Rowe Mesa tract is not separated from the Pablo Dean tract. Therefore, Plaintiffs are correct in asserting that Section 38-3-l(D)(2) was satisfied since the Matías Encinias tract is contiguous to the Pablo Dean tract, which lies in part in San Miguel County. Second, although not argued by the parties, the fact that Tranquilino combined the Pablo Dean tract and the Matías Encinias tract under one fence indicates that he considered these tracts as one. Consequently, the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim was erroneous, because the requirements of Section 38-3 — 1(D)(1) have been met, which allows the suit to be brought in the county where the land or any portion of the land is situated. For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent and would hold that venue is proper in San Miguel County.