Abo Petroleum Corporation v. Amstutz
93 N.M. 332, 600 P.2d 278 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders is not applicable in New Mexico. This feudal-era doctrine, which allows a life estate to merge with a reversion to destroy an intervening contingent remainder, is an obsolete rule that arbitrarily defeats a grantor's intent and will not be adopted as state law.
Facts:
- In 1908, James and Amanda Turknett conveyed separate parcels of property to their daughters, Beulah and Ruby.
- The deeds granted each daughter a life estate, with the remainder interest to go to the daughter's 'children if she have any at her death.'
- If a daughter died without children, the property would become part of her estate.
- At the time of the 1908 conveyances, neither Beulah nor Ruby had any children.
- Between 1911 and 1916, the parents executed subsequent deeds to their daughters for the same properties, which purported to convey absolute title.
- After all deeds were executed, Beulah had three children and Ruby had four children.
- Beulah and Ruby later attempted to convey fee simple title to the properties to the predecessors of Abo Petroleum.
Procedural Posture:
- Abo Petroleum filed a quiet title action against the children of Beulah and Ruby Turknett Jones in the District Court of Eddy County, the state's trial court.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Abo Petroleum and entered a partial final judgment.
- The children, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders apply in New Mexico to allow a life estate to merge with a subsequently-conveyed reversionary interest, thereby destroying the intervening contingent remainders of unborn children?
Opinions:
Majority - Payne, Justice
No. The doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders does not apply in New Mexico. The 1908 deeds created life estates in the daughters and contingent remainders in their future children. Because these remainders were contingent, the grantors (the parents) retained a reversionary interest. Abo Petroleum argued that the parents' subsequent conveyance of this reversion to the daughters merged with their life estates, destroying the children's contingent remainders under the common law doctrine. The court rejected this argument, noting that New Mexico only adopts common law that is 'applicable to our condition and circumstances.' The destructibility doctrine is a relic of feudal law based on the obsolete concept that seisin could never be in abeyance. The court found that the doctrine has been almost universally abandoned, frustrates the grantor's intent, and its only modern justification—promoting alienability of land—is achieved arbitrarily. Therefore, the court declined to apply the doctrine and held that the children's contingent remainders were not destroyed.
Analysis:
This decision formally abolishes the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders in New Mexico, aligning the state with the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions. By prioritizing the grantor's manifested intent over an archaic feudal-era rule, the court solidifies the security of future interests. The ruling ensures that contingent remainders cannot be defeated by the technical maneuver of merging a life estate with a reversion. This enhances the predictability of property dispositions and prevents the frustration of estate plans based on outdated legal formalisms.
Unlock the full brief for Abo Petroleum Corporation v. Amstutz