{ "id": 1568834, "name": "Michael W. FISCHER and Nancy J. Fischer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pedro MASCARENAS and Jennie Mascarenas, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Fischer v. Mascarenas", "decision_date": "1979-08-23", "docket_number": "No. 12218", "first_page": "199", "last_page": "201", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "93 N.M. 199" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "598 P.2d 1159" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "83 N.M. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5340673 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "563 F.2d 418", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 889212 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/563/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 U.S. 654", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6170284 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/369/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2851141 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2809639 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5368021 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 766", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5354205 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0766-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2872270 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 P.2d 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 2853913 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0406-02" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.M. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2853913, 2853558 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0406-02", "/nm/72/0406-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 5399, "ocr_confidence": 0.806, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.711932436948333e-07, "percentile": 0.893427763549149 }, "sha256": "e38fb0e3cd06ca425eb6cc1112b16cff8cc5ccf88d70dad8306272f25b4b38ad", "simhash": "1:9360f6bfb514660b", "word_count": 889 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:36.909287+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, C. J., and FEDERICI, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Michael W. FISCHER and Nancy J. Fischer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pedro MASCARENAS and Jennie Mascarenas, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nEASLEY, Justice.\nThe Fischers (Fischer) sued Mr. and Mrs. Mascarenas (Mascarenas) to enjoin the latter from interfering with real property claimed by Fischer. Mascarenas counterclaimed to quiet title to the property. Mascarenas\u2019 counterclaim was dismissed on Fischer\u2019s motion for summary judgment, and Mascarenas appeals. We reverse.\nWe inquire if an affidavit of an attorney stating that he has examined title to the land and has found that Fischer has good title is sufficient to negate an affidavit by Mascarenas that he owns the same land, which is identically described in deeds of the respective parties, so as to entitle Fischer to summary judgment.\nMascarenas has three deeds which he contends give him good title to the land. However, an uncontradicted affidavit of a surveyor states that two of these deeds, executed in 1922, in Mascarenas\u2019 chain of title do not. describe the property in question or any part of it. The third deed, executed in 1978, contains the same description as Fischer\u2019s deed. Both sides claim title from a common predecessor in title, several times removed.\nMascarenas paid taxes on the property for some twenty years. He claims to have \u201cpossessed\u201d the property and erected \u201cno trespassing\u201d and \u201cno parking\u201d signs on the property some time prior to the filing of this action.\nFischer introduced an affidavit of an experienced real estate attorney, which states that he examined the records and determined that Fischer has fee simple title. However, instruments showing the full chain of title of the two parties were not introduced into evidence.\nMascarenas relies upon his deed describing the exact property in question, his unequivocal assertion of ownership of the land contained in his affidavit, the payment of taxes, and his \u201cpossession\u201d of the land and claims this creates a question of fact as to ownership, precluding summary judgment.\nFischer answers that Mascarenas has admitted that his claim to the land is based on one of the three deeds or on adverse possession. Fischer alleges that, since all of these claims are shown to be defective by the uncontradicted affidavits before the court, summary judgment was proper.\nSince the uncontradicted evidence of the survey indicates that the 1922 deeds do not describe the land in question, those deeds cannot be the basis of a valid claim and cannot provide color of title for purposes of adverse possession. Sanchez v. Garcia, 72 N.M. 406, 384 P.2d 681 (1963). The 1978 deed describes the correct property and establishes color of title, but the statutory period for adverse possession has not elapsed since the deed was given. \u00a7 37-1-22, N.M.S.A.1978.\nMascarenas also argues that summary judgment was not proper because Fischer failed to establish his own title to the property. Fischer responds that the affidavit of the attorney which states the opinion that the land is held by Fischer in fee simple is adequate evidence on this point. Considering the disposition we make of the case, it is not necessary to decide this issue.\nSummary judgment, being an extreme remedy to be employed with great caution, cannot be substituted for a trial on the merits as long as one issue of material fact is still present in the case. Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. v. Goffe, 90 N.M. 753, 568 P.2d 589 (1977); N.M.R.Civ.P. 56(c), N.M.S. A.1978. The remedy should not be employed where there is the slightest doubt as to the existence of an issue of material fact. Spears v. Canon de Carnue Land Grant, 80 N.M. 766, 461 P.2d 415 (1969). Even where the basic facts are undisputed, if equally logical but conflicting inferences can be drawn from the facts, summary judgment should be denied. Barber's Super Markets, Inc. v. Stryker, 81 N.M. 227, 465 P.2d 284 (1970); Ute Park Summer Homes Ass\u2019n v. Maxwell Land Gr. Co., 77 N.M. 730, 427 P.2d 249 (1967); Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Lea County Sand & Gravel, Inc., 70 N.M. 144, 371 P.2d 795 (1962). See also United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Exnicious v. United States, 563 F.2d 418 (10th Cir. 1977).\nThe deed to Mascarenas conveying this specific property, the payment of taxes, the \u201cpossession\u201d by Mascarenas, the presence of a common predecessor in the chain of title of both parties and the other circumstances supporting the Mascarenas claim raise an issue of material fact as to the ownership of the land. Although most of these facts are not disputed, equally logical but conflicting inferences can be drawn, making summary judgment impermissible. Pharmaseal, supra; Yeary v. Aztec Discounts, Inc., 83 N.M. 319, 491 P.2d 536 (Ct.App.1971). The evidence of Fischer, at its best, proves only that he has legal title. It does not rule out an inference that equitable title is in Mascarenas, and does not preclude an inference of mistaken description in the deed to persons in the Mascarenas chain of title from the common predecessor in title of the parties.\nWe reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for trial.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, C. J., and FEDERICI, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EASLEY, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas G. Rice, Las Vegas, for defendants-appellants.", "Felker & McFeeley, Randolph B. Felker, Santa Fe, for plaintiffs-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "598 P.2d 1159\nMichael W. FISCHER and Nancy J. Fischer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pedro MASCARENAS and Jennie Mascarenas, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 12218.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 23, 1979.\nThomas G. Rice, Las Vegas, for defendants-appellants.\nFelker & McFeeley, Randolph B. Felker, Santa Fe, for plaintiffs-appellees." }, "file_name": "0199-01", "first_page_order": 245, "last_page_order": 247 }