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

• In 1995, the Romeros entered into a real estate contract for a property in Soccoro County and later sold the water rights to New Mexico Land & Water Conservancy, LLC (NML&W) in 1999. Upsilon One, LLC, which had acquired the owners' rights under the initial contract, filed a declaratory and injunctive action in 2006 against the Romeros for defaulting on payments. NML&W intervened in the action, opposing the forfeiture. The Romeros settled with Upsilon One, agreeing not to contest the forfeiture, leading to a joint motion for summary judgment against NML&W's claims on the basis of lack of standing.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Upsilon One, LLC and the Romeros: Argued that NML&W lacked standing to intervene in the lawsuit because it was not a party to the real estate contract at issue.
• New Mexico Land & Water Conservancy, LLC (NML&W): Contended that it had standing to intervene in the forfeiture proceeding to protect its interest in the water rights associated with the property.

Legal Issues

• Whether NML&W had standing to intervene in the lawsuit concerning the real estate contract between Upsilon One, LLC and the Romeros.

Disposition

• The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that NML&W lacked standing to intervene in the lawsuit.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring):
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding NML&W lacked standing as it was not a party to the contract solely at issue in the lawsuit. The court reasoned that standing requires direct injury, causation, and redressability, which NML&W did not meet because its injury was an indirect result of the contract between Upsilon One and the Romeros. The court referenced New Mexico Supreme Court precedents and analogous cases to support the principle that a party not in privity with a contract cannot maintain a suit upon it. NML&W's arguments regarding its ability to intervene and be a real party of interest were dismissed as irrelevant to the issue of standing. The court also noted that NML&W's interest in the water rights could not grant it standing in the real estate contract dispute and suggested that NML&W's remedy lies in action under its contract with the Romeros, not through intervention in the lawsuit between Upsilon One and the Romeros. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment as standing can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and NML&W's lack of standing was a jurisdictional defect.