equitable conversion doctrine (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

equitable conversion doctrine in New Mexico

10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Marks v. City of Tucumcarigreen
nm · 1979 · cited in 6 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1981–2014
2 sentences

2014By application of the doctrine of equitable conversion, the [purchaser] is treated as the owner of the land and holds an interest in real estate.” Maries v. City of Tucumcari, 1979-NMSC-045 , ¶ 5, 93 N.M. 4 , 595 P.2d 1199 ; see MGIC Mortg.

2014By application of the doctrine of equitable conversion, the [purchaser] is treated as the owner of the land and holds an interest in real estate.” Maries v. City of Tucumcari, 1979-NMSC-045 , ¶ 5, 93 N.M. 4 , 595 P.2d 1199 ; see MGIC Mortg.

26
Gregg v. Gardnergreen
nm · 1963 · cited in 5 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1979–2014
2 sentences

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

25
Mesich v. Board of County Com'rs of McKinley Co.green
nm · 1942 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982In Mesich v. Board of County Commissioners, 46 N.M. 412, 416-17 , 129 P.2d 974, 976 (1942), this Court discussed the equitable doctrine: In law the effect of a contract whereby the owner agrees to sell and another agrees to purchase a designated tract of land, the vendor remains the owner of the legal title to the land; he holds the legal title * * * But, in equity the vendee is held to have acquired the property in the land and-the vendor as having acquired the property in the price of it.

1982In Mesich v. Board of County Commissioners, 46 N.M. 412, 416-17 , 129 P.2d 974, 976 (1942), this Court discussed the equitable doctrine: In law the effect of a contract whereby the owner agrees to sell and another agrees to purchase a designated tract of land, the vendor remains the owner of the legal title to the land; he holds the legal title * * * But, in equity the vendee is held to have acquired the property in the land and-the vendor as having acquired the property in the price of it.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
MGIC Mortgage Corp. v. Bowen green
nm · 1977
2 sentences

2014Corp. v. Bowen, 1977-NMSC-108 , ¶¶ 4-6, 91 N.M. 200 , 572 P.2d 547 (recognizing that a purchaser, under a real estate contract, holds an equitable interest); Gregg v. Gardner, 1963-NMSC-223 , ¶ 31, 73 N.M. 347 , 388 P.2d 68 (“It is equally clear from our decisions that in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land which he may devise by will[.]”); Mesich v. Bd. of Cnty.

2014Corp. v. Bowen, 1977-NMSC-108 , ¶¶ 4-6, 91 N.M. 200 , 572 P.2d 547 (recognizing that a purchaser, under a real estate contract, holds an equitable interest); Gregg v. Gardner, 1963-NMSC-223 , ¶ 31, 73 N.M. 347 , 388 P.2d 68 (“It is equally clear from our decisions that in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land which he may devise by will[.]”); Mesich v. Bd. of Cnty.

22014–2014
Toledo Society for Crippled Children v. Hickok green
tex · 1953
2 sentences

1956Toledo Soc. for Crippled Children v. Hickok, 1953, 152 Tex. 578 , 261 S.W.2d 692 , 43 A.L.R.2d 553 .

1956Toledo Soc. for Crippled Children v. Hickok, 1953, 152 Tex. 578 , 261 S.W.2d 692 , 43 A.L.R.2d 553 .

21956–1956
Hobbs Municipal School District No. 16 v. Knowles Development Co. green
nm · 1980
2 sentences

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

11982–1982
Trickey v. Zumwalt green
nm · 1971
2 sentences

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

11982–1982
Keirsey v. Hirsch green
nm · 1953
2 sentences

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

1982The vendor, before payment, holds the title as trustee for security only. [Citations omitted.] We applied the Mesich reasoning in Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 359 , 388 P.2d 68, 77 (1963), in which we stated that “in equity a contract for sale of real estate results in the purchaser acquiring an equitable interest in the land * * * through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.” See also Hobbs Municipal School District v. Knowles Development Co., 94 N.M. 3 , 606 P.2d 541 (1980) (interest acquired by purchaser under executory contract for sale of land is real estate and subject

11982–1982
Eddington v. Turner green
del · 1944
2 sentences

1963Through the doctrine of equitable conversion, her interest is considered as personalty. 19 Am.Jur. 11, Equitable Conversion, § 11; Eddington v. Turner, 27 Del.Ch. 411 , 38 A.2d 738 , 155 A.L.R. 562 ; see note in 65 A.L.R. 632 .

1963Through the doctrine of equitable conversion, her interest is considered as personalty. 19 Am.Jur. 11, Equitable Conversion, § 11; Eddington v. Turner, 27 Del.Ch. 411 , 38 A.2d 738 , 155 A.L.R. 562 ; see note in 65 A.L.R. 632 .

11963–1963
Treadwell v. Henderson green
nm · 1954
2 sentences

1963In Treadwell v. Henderson, 58 N.M. 230 , 269 P.2d 1108 , it was explained that this results through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.

1963In Treadwell v. Henderson, 58 N.M. 230 , 269 P.2d 1108 , it was explained that this results through application of the doctrine of equitable conversion.

11963–1963

Where else courts name it

IL 38 (1903–2026) NY 21 (1865–2012) CT 21 (1929–2016) OR 20 (1924–2023) MD 20 (1935–2025) PA 16 (1908–2022) CA 14 (1926–2015) IA 14 (1908–2024) MT 10 (1932–1995) FL 10 (1940–2008) NJ 10 (1930–2007) NM 10 (1956–2014) WI 10 (1894–2005) OH 8 (1960–2020) VA 8 (1926–2012) MI 7 (1933–2023) DC 5 (2006–2015) UT 5 (1987–2017) WY 5 (1970–2021) MA 4 (1925–2001) MN 4 (1913–2003) IN 4 (1932–1990) TN 4 (1996–2013) KS 3 (1939–1953) OK 3 (1992–2019) GA 3 (1980–2011) TX 3 (1980–2015) WV 3 (1982–2007) NC 3 (1952–2022) ND 3 (1992–2000) MO 3 (1950–1978) AL 3 (1922–2023) KY 2 (1937–1946) WA 2 (1977–1983) CO 2 (1986–2001) AZ 2 (1966–1993) ID 2 (1993–2015) RI 2 (1947–2005) NE 2 (2005–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check