AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over whether Hagerman Well water rights were included in a mortgage foreclosure judgment. The Plaintiff, Los Alamos National Bank, had previously entered into a stipulated judgment of foreclosure on a mortgage held against property owned by the Defendants, which included Santa Fe Horse Park, LLC, and others. The contention arose around the inclusion of certain water rights, specifically the Hagerman Well water rights, under the terms of the mortgage and the foreclosure judgment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in granting Defendants' motion for relief from judgment concerning the Hagerman Well water rights, contending that these rights were included under the terms of the stipulated judgment of foreclosure.
• Defendants: Successfully moved for relief from judgment, presumably arguing that the Hagerman Well water rights were not included within the terms of the mortgage or the stipulated judgment of foreclosure.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting relief from a stipulated judgment regarding the inclusion of Hagerman Well water rights.
• Whether the Hagerman Well water rights were included in the mortgage and thus subject to the stipulated judgment of foreclosure.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for relief from judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this appeal with another appeal arising from the same underlying district court case.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, provided several reasons for its decision:
  The Court found that the district court did not actually provide relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) but was instead determining whether the Hagerman Well water rights came within the terms of the judgment. The Court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to enforce and give effect to the terms of a judgment, including determining the scope of property subject to foreclosure.
  The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff's interpretation of the stipulated judgment and the mortgage, stating that the foreclosure was intended only to cover property explicitly subject to the terms of the mortgage. The Court noted that the stipulated judgment did not expressly resolve the dispute over the Hagerman Well water rights, allowing the district court to interpret the terms of the stipulated judgment without resorting to Rule 1-060(B).
  Regarding the inclusion of the Hagerman Well water rights in the mortgage, the Court found that the Plaintiff's arguments did not persuade them that these rights were encompassed by the mortgage's terms. The Court adhered to the principle that appurtenant water rights must be expressly conveyed unless they are automatically conveyed with the land, which was not argued by the Plaintiff.
  The Court also addressed the Plaintiff's contention regarding the district court's application of water law principles, stating that the district court's decision did not constitute reversible error as the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantive error in the ruling.
  Finally, the Court denied the Plaintiff's request to assign the case to the general calendar for a broader examination of the underlying facts, emphasizing that the Plaintiff had the obligation to present a complete analysis of the facts and law in its docketing statement and memorandum in opposition.