When any person or his assignors may have heretofore made, or may hereafter make any valuable improvements on any lands, and he or his assignors have been or may hereafter be deprived of the possession of said improvements in any manner whatever, he shall have the right, either in an action of ejectment which may have been brought against him for the possession, or by an appropriate action at any time thereafter within ten years, to have the value of his said improvements assessed in his favor, as of the date he was so deprived of the possession thereof, and the said value so assessed shall be a lien upon the said land and improvements, and all other lands of the person who so deprived him of the possession thereof situate in the same county, until paid; but no improvements shall be assessed which may or shall have been made after the service of summons in an action of ejectment on him in favor of the person against whom he seeks to have said value assessed for said improvements.
History: Laws 1878, ch. 6, § 3; C.L. 1884, § 2581; C.L. 1897, § 3755; Code 1915, § 4375; C.S. 1929, § 105-1816; 1941 Comp., § 25-817; 1953 Comp., § 22-8-17.
ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
Compiler's notes. — Insofar as this section affords relief to an improver who is deprived of possession by an ejectment suit, it may be superseded by 42-4-14 to 42-4-16 NMSA 1978.
Betterment statutes were designed to afford relief to those property improvers who honestly, but mistakenly, believed that they controlled the property. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985
Where action was not ejectment action, purchaser of land at judicial sale was not entitled to relief under the betterment statute. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985
Color of title to lands required to invoke section. — This section and 42-4-18 NMSA 1978 cannot be invoked by anyone who does not have color of title to the lands. Frank A. Hubbell Co. v. Curtis, 1936-NMSC-033, 40 N.M. 234, 58 P.2d 1163; Sandoval v. Perez, 1920-NMSC-058, 26 N.M. 280, 191 P. 467.
Color of title is required in order for the dispossessed to come under the operation of this section. Cano v. Lovato, 1986-NMCA-043, 105 N.M. 522, 734 P.2d 762, cert. quashed, 105 N.M. 438, 733 P.2d 1321.
This section and 39-5-18 NMSA 1978 can be construed together. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMCA-112, 136 N.M. 332, 98 P.3d 722, rev'd, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985.
Section supplemental to Section 42-4-18 NMSA 1978. — This section and Section 42-4-18 NMSA 1978 are supplemental to each other and do not afford distinct and different remedies. Speartex Grain Co. v. West, 1982-NMCA-082, 98 N.M. 91, 645 P.2d 447.
Section was inapplicable to improvements made prior to enactment. Newton v. Thornton, 1885-NMSC-002,3 N.M. (Gild.) 287, 5 P. 257.
Obligation to pay for improvements. — The betterment statute creates an obligation to pay for improvements based on principles of equity and unjust enrichment. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMCA-112, 136 N.M. 332, 98 P.3d 722, rev'd, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985.
Purchaser met requirements of section to bring claim where purchaser had possession of the property and color of title as a result of the district court's order confirming the sale of the property and ordering delivery of the property and the deed to purchaser. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMCA-112, 136 N.M. 332, 98 P.3d 722, rev'd, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985.
Inapplicability of section to state lands. — All property placed on state land which became a part of the realty is the property of the state unless otherwise provided by law. Frank A. Hubbell Co. v. Curtis, 1936-NMSC-033, 40 N.M. 234, 58 P.2d 1163.
Improvements absolute property of landowner at time of enactment. — At the time of the enactment of this section, improvements were absolutely the property of the owner of the land, and no legislature could take or destroy private property for private use, by statutory enactments, and so far as it attempted anything of that kind, it was clearly void. Newton v. Thornton, 1885-NMSC-002,3 N.M. (Gild.) 287, 5 P. 257.
Reimbursement for improvements. — Section 39-5-18 NMSA 1978, while providing the exclusive procedure and remedy for redemption, does not bar a court from ordering a redeemer to reimburse a purchaser at foreclosure for improvements made by that purchaser before a petition for a certificate of redemption is filed or served, and the court had the authority to order such reimbursement under this section. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Candelaria, 2004-NMCA-112, 136 N.M. 332, 98 P.3d 722, rev'd, 2004-NMSC-017, 135 N.M. 527, 90 P.3d 985.
Effect of unconfirmed Mexican land grant on lien. — A defendant claiming perfect title under a grant from Mexico, who has not had it confirmed as a United States title, cannot have a lien for improvements made on the land where plaintiff holds a United States patent, for such a lien would interfere with the disposition of public lands, and the power of congress to dispose of the public domain cannot be interfered with nor its exercise embarrassed by any state or territorial legislature, so he cannot prove the Mexican title. Chavez v. Chavez de Sanchez, 1893-NMSC-007, 7 N.M. 58, 32 P. 137).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 25 Am. Jur. 2d Ejectment §§ 19, 34, 35.
Taxes or public improvement assessments, right of purchaser at invalid sale for, to reimbursement from owner in action of ejectment, and provisions of judgment as to relief, 86 A.L.R. 1222, 28 A.L.R.3d 449.
28A C.J.S. Ejectment § 157.