New Mexico Supreme Court

Reinhart v. Lindholm

J. S. Reinhart v. A. Lynn Lindholm and Florence A. Lindholm, His Wife

84 N.M. 546 · 505 P.2d 1222

Decided December 22, 1972

No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.

Download PDF

SummaryHoldingsLater treatmentOpinion of the Court

Summary

The court held that plaintiff could not maintain an unlawful-detainer action because his claimed right to possession depended directly on resolving disputed title, which the governing statute forbids in such an action. The court therefore reversed the judgment finding defendants guilty of unlawful detainer, awarding plaintiff damages, and placing plaintiff in possession.

Holdings

  • Whether an unlawful-detainer action may be maintained when the plaintiff's asserted right to possession depends on resolving a disputed question of title.. An unlawful-detainer action may not be maintained when the plaintiff's claimed title is directly and inextricably involved, because the statute prohibits investigating title to land in an unlawful-detainer action.

Written by LawDiver's case analysis.

How later courts treated this case

3 opinions cite this case

Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.

See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.

In this case

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McMANUS, Justice.

Defendants purchased a ranch in 1968 and have remained in possession of it since that time. Plaintiff does not claim any right to possession prior to that of defendants and has never been in possession of the ranch as an owner, as a tenant, or in any other capacity. Yet, on July 27, 1971, he caused defendants to be served with a notice to quit and deliver possession, and when defendants refused to do so plaintiff brought suit in the District Court of Torrance County for unlawful detainer and related damages.

On these facts alone it seems strange indeed that plaintiff feels entitled to possession. Only if we investigate and determine plaintiff’s claimed title to the property, based upon a bitterly disputed contract between the parties, will plaintiff’s actions seem reasonable. Plaintiff’s alleged title is the only foundation for his claim that defendants are violating § 36-12-1 (A) (5), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972), as follows:

“A. A civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer of real property is commenced by the filing of a civil complaint alleging that one or more of the following facts exists: * * *
“(5) the defendant is a tenant from month to month or a tenant at will and continues in possession of the premises after thirty [30] days’ written notice by the owner or his agent or attorney to vacate.”

Section 36-12-2(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972), reads as follows:

“The questions of title or boundaries of land shall not be investigated in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, but the action does not prevent a party from testing the right of property • in any other manner. An action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, not be brought in connection with any other action, nor may it be made the subject of setoff.”

Because plaintiff’s title is so directly and inextricably involved in this action for unlawful detainer and because § 36-12-2(C), supra, directs that the question of title to land shall not be investigated in an action for unlawful detainer, it follows that this action may not be maintained.

The judgment of the court below that defendants were guilty of unlawful detainer, that plaintiff was entitled to damages and that plaintiff should be put in possession of the property is reversed.

It is .so ordered.

OMAN and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur.

Research the next case the same way

Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.

  • Search every way lawyers do

    Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.

  • See what still holds

    Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.

  • Check a brief before you file

    CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.

  • Use it where you work

    The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.

Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders

Related landmark cases

All landmark cases·Browse by topic