Martinez v. Martinez
678 P.2d 1163, 101 N.M. 88 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a real estate contract gives a seller the option to declare forfeiture upon a buyer's default, the seller must first provide the buyer with notice of the intent to declare a forfeiture and a reasonable period of time to cure the default before the forfeiture can be validly exercised.
Facts:
- In February 1970, Delfino and Eleanor Martinez (Sellers) sold property to their son Carlos and his wife Sennie Martinez (Buyers) under a real estate contract.
- The Buyers agreed to assume the existing mortgage on the property.
- Contemporaneously, the Sellers physically handed the Buyers a warranty deed with oral instructions to place it in escrow with the mortgage company until the mortgage was paid in full.
- Before delivering the deed to the escrow agent, the Buyers recorded the deed in their names.
- The Buyers made monthly mortgage payments for over ten years, until November 1980.
- In November 1980, Carlos informed Sennie that he would no longer contribute to the mortgage payments.
- Sennie missed the January and February 1981 payments, and on March 27, 1981, the Sellers cured the default to prevent foreclosure by the mortgage company.
- On April 11, 1981, Sennie received a letter from the Sellers' attorney stating they were exercising their option under the contract to demand reconveyance and that they were now the lawful owners, demanding she vacate immediately.
Procedural Posture:
- Delfino and Eleanor Martinez (Sellers) filed a lawsuit against Sennie and Carlos Martinez in a New Mexico trial court, seeking to recover title to and possession of the real estate.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Sellers.
- Sennie Martinez, a defendant at trial, appealed the trial court's decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court, becoming the defendant-appellant.
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 a seller's notice of forfeiture under a real estate contract, which declares an immediate forfeiture and demands reconveyance without providing the buyer a reasonable time to cure the default, constitute a valid exercise of the seller's contractual rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Justice
No. A seller's notice of forfeiture is invalid if it declares the forfeiture effective immediately rather than stating that a forfeiture will be effected in the future unless payment is made within a prescribed, reasonable time. The court reasoned that the physical transfer of the deed was a conditional delivery, not an absolute conveyance, because parol evidence established the Sellers' intent for it to be held in escrow. Therefore, the real estate contract and its reconveyance provision were not merged into the deed and remained in effect. However, the forfeiture provision in the contract was an option, not a self-executing clause. Citing the law's general disapproval of forfeitures, the court held that exercising such an option requires the vendor to first give reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure the default. The Sellers' April 11th letter, demanding immediate reconveyance, breached this implied duty and did not effect a valid forfeiture.
Dissenting - Riordan, Justice
Yes. The trial judge’s decision was correct because it was supported by substantial evidence. An appellate court should not disturb a trial court's decision when it is supported by substantial evidence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the judicial disfavor of forfeitures in real estate contract disputes in New Mexico. It establishes a crucial procedural safeguard for buyers (vendees) by requiring sellers (vendors) to provide a notice and cure period before declaring a forfeiture, even if the contract does not explicitly state one. This ruling prevents sellers from using a minor default to effect an immediate and inequitable forfeiture of a buyer's accumulated equity. The case also affirms the principle that the grantor's intent is the controlling element in deed delivery, allowing courts to look beyond the physical transfer of the document to surrounding circumstances and oral instructions.
