During the pendency of such suit or proceeding any person claiming to be interested in the premises may appear and answer the complaint and assert his right by way of intervention, whether such interest be derived or claimed under the common source of title or otherwise, and the court shall decide upon their [his] rights as though they [he] had been made parties [a party] in the first instance.
History: C.L. 1897, § 2685 (269), added by Laws 1907, ch. 107, § 1 (269); Code 1915, § 4382; C.S. 1929, § 105-1904; 1941 Comp., § 25-1204; 1953 Comp., § 22-13-4.
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
Cross references. — For intervention, see Rule 1-024 NMRA.
Right to intervene is given to all persons claiming interest in the land, whether under the common title sought to be partitioned or by title independent thereof. Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676, aff'd sub nom. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914); Baca v. Anaya, 1908-NMSC-009, 14 N.M. 382, 94 P. 1017.
Owner of premises can intervene, whatever origin of his title. — The owner of the whole or any part of the premises sought to be partitioned may, whatever the origin of his title, intervene for the settlement of his rights. Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676, aff'd sub nom. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914).
When persons asserting adverse interests may intervene. — Persons asserting adverse interests may intervene in partition proceedings after commissioners have reported that partition cannot be made, and before further action of the court. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914) aff'g Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676.
Intervention prohibited for purpose of litigating rights not originally raised. — A formal party, or a person who makes himself a party by his own conduct during the litigation, is not entitled to intervene for the purpose of subsequently litigating rights which he failed to assert in the main proceeding. Baca v. Catron, 1917-NMSC-074, 24 N.M. 242, 173 P. 862.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 33, 74, 87.
68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 78, 222, 236.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.