Jeffers v. Martinez
New Mexico Supreme Court
601 P.2d 1204 (1979)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
From a previous marriage, Betty Martinez (formerly Betty Doel) (defendant) was the sole owner of real property located in New Mexico. The real estate was Betty’s separate property at the time she married Frank Martinez. In May 1977, Betty executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property from herself to both Frank and her, as husband and wife. The deed was never recorded. In 1978, Rodney and Victoria Jeffers (plaintiffs) entered a real estate contract to purchase the property from “Betty L. Doel [Martinez].” According to the Jefferses, they believed that the property was Betty’s separate property. Thereafter, Betty refused to sell the property to the Jefferses pursuant to the parties’ contract. The Jefferses sued Betty seeking specific performance. Betty argued that the quitclaim deed was valid, the property had been transmuted to community property, and community property could not be conveyed by one spouse alone. According to Betty, the Jefferses’ real estate agent knew that the property was community property, a proposition denied by the agent. Likewise, the Jefferses claimed to have no actual or constructive knowledge of a transmutation deed. The trial court entered summary judgment in Betty’s favor. The Jefferses appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Felter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.