Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

University Village Mobile Home Park LLC v. Calderon

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

December 18, 2017

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN CALDERON and MARGARET PARKS, Defendants-Appellants.

         This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

         APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Denise Barela-Shepherd, District Judge.

          Vance, Chavez & Associates, LLC James A. Chavez Albuquerque, NM for Appellee.

          New Mexico Legal Aid, Inc. Thomas Prettyman Albuquerque, NM for Appellants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JULIE J. VARGAS, JUDGE.

         {1} Defendants appeal the district court's decision affirming the metropolitan court's judgment of eviction against them. Following a trial on the merits, the metropolitan court concluded that Defendants breached a settlement agreement between the parties by failing to insure that the nephews of one of the defendants did not enter onto the mobile home park property. As the plain language of the settlement agreement does not impose an obligation on Defendants to keep the nephews off the mobile home park property, we conclude that there is not substantial evidence that Defendants violated the settlement agreement. We reverse.

         I. BACKGROUND

         {2} John Calderon and Margaret Parks (collectively, Tenants) are tenants of the University Village Mobile Home Park (the Park) where they rent a space on which their mobile home is located. Early in 2013, University Village Mobile Home Park LLC (Landlord), sued to terminate Tenants' tenancy under the Mobile Home Park Act (MHPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 47-10-1 to -23 (1983, as amended through 2007), alleging that Tenant Parks' nephews were causing problems at the Park. The parties agreed to mediate the dispute, and in May 2013, entered into a "Resolution" (settlement agreement) that allowed Tenants to remain at the Park. The settlement agreement contained two provisions relevant to this appeal: (1) the "nephews will be notified that they are no longer allowed to be on the mobile home property"[;] and (2) "[t]here will be no more reported incidents and no activity after 10 p[.]m." These provisions, according to the language of the settlement agreement, resolve "all issues between the parties[.]" After the settlement agreement was finalized, Landlord sent Tenants a notification confirming it had issued a no trespass order to the nephews.

         {3} Eight months after the settlement agreement was finalized, Landlord served Tenants with a thirty-day notice to quit the property (the notice), notifying Tenants that their tenancy had been terminated. As grounds for termination, the notice alleged that Tenants "violated the lease and rules of the [P]ark" by "allow[ing the] nephews to enter [the Park] premises." Tenants did not comply with Landlord's demand that they remove their home and property from the Park and Landlord filed a second petition to terminate Tenants' tenancy in the metropolitan court.

         {4} The metropolitan court held a hearing on the petition, at which time Landlord's employee testified that she had seen the nephews on the property. The employee did not alert the police of the nephews' trespass on the property, though she was aware that Landlord had issued a no trespass order to the nephews. Following the testimony of Landlord's employee, the metropolitan court commented that it seemed "pretty clear" that Tenants' ability to reside at the [P]ark "hinged" on the premise that the nephews were not welcome on the Park property. Before allowing Tenants to call their first witness, the metropolitan court opined that the facts pointed to a conclusion that the settlement agreement had been violated. Tenant Calderon then testified that since entering into the settlement agreement, he had not invited the nephews to his home or had them in his home. He also testified that the nephews were friends with another resident of the Park. Tenant Parks testified that she told the nephews that they were not welcome in or near Tenants' mobile home. She also testified that she had not invited the nephews on the property and that they had not come into her home since the parties entered into the settlement agreement.

         {5} At the conclusion of the evidence, the metropolitan court acknowledged that "[i]t seems pretty clear that [the nephews] were notified[, ]" pointing to the no trespass order issued by Landlord and Tenant Parks' testimony that she warned the nephews not to come near her home as support. In light of the employee's testimony that the nephews were seen on the Park property after the settlement agreement was finalized, the metropolitan court found Tenants had violated the settlement agreement and entered judgment for Landlord. The metropolitan court based its ruling on its conclusion that Tenants "have an obligation to keep the nephews off the property at the risk of losing their space." Tenants appealed that judgment, filing an on-record appeal to the district court pursuant to Rule 1-073 NMRA.

         {6} In a memorandum opinion, the district court affirmed the metropolitan court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusion that Tenants understood the settlement agreement "imposed on them the obligation to keep the nephews off the property" and that the evidence demonstrated that the nephews were on the property in February 2014. The district court concluded that "substantial evidence supports that a violation of the [settlement a]greement occurred giving rise to good cause for termination under the statute." Tenants appealed their case to this court.

         II. DISCUSSION

         {7} The MHPA provides that a tenancy in a mobile home park can only be terminated for one of the enumerated reasons set out in the MHPA. Section 47-10-5 ("A tenancy shall be terminated pursuant to the [MHPA] only for one or more of the following reasons[.]" (Emphasis added.)). Among the reasons for termination cited in the MHPA is the tenant's failure "to comply with written rules and regulations of the mobile home park either established by the management in the rental agreement at the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.