Family Histories (67)

Saturday, 17 March 2012 04:00

Getting family history from a Quiet Title lawsuit

Contributed by

 

From Quiet Title:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FILED March 3, 1983

No. SF 80-1103 (C)

                                               

 

BAUDINO MONTOYA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 

vs.

CITY OF SANTA FE, et al.,

Defendants.

 

DECISION OF THE COURT

 

THIS MATTER coming on before the Court for hearing, and the Plaintiffs being present and represented by counsel, Sommer & Lawler, PA., and Defendant Jose Paz Montoya being present and represented by counsel, and the other Defendants not present and counsel for Plaintiffs having stipulated in open Court that the real estate described in the Complaint is subject

to certain easements .in favor of the City of Santa Fe, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, and the County of Santa Fe, having heard the testimony, considered the evidence and the arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, herewith enters it’s decision in the form of the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

1. Plaintiffs are a committee of, and duly appointed by heirs of Elaisa Lopez de Montoya and Jose Lino Montoya, both deceased.

 

Page 1

 


 

2. At the time of their deaths; Elaisa Lopez de Montoya and Jose Lino Montoya were seized of certain real estate in Santa County, New Mexico, which real estate is more particularly described in Exhibit F to the Complaint, copy of which exhibit is attached hereto.

 

3. Jose Lino Montoya was married three times.  The first was to Magdalena, who had two children by him: Onofre and Jose; the second was to Cleofes, who had four children by him:

Eugenio, Carlota, Ignacio and Filomeno; the third was to Elaisa Lopez de Montoya,

who had ten children by him: Ramon, Samuel, Lino, Manuel, Tonita, Rodolfo, Efrucinia, Pascual, Anita and Eduvigen.

 

4. Jose Lino Montoya died intestate in 1916, leaving as his widow Elaisa Lopez de Montoya.

 

5. On February 5, 1918, Eugenio Montoya, Jose Montoya and Filomeno Montoya, the surviving sons of Jose Lino Montoya and Cleofes Montoya, executed and delivered to Elaisa Lopez de

Montoya a renunciation of any lands they were entitled to by way of Jose Lino Montoya in consideration of inheritance from Elaisa Lopez de Montoya being left with a great number of children, of her assuming and paying the debts of Jose Lino Montoya and his funeral expenses, and of her granting to Filomeno Montoya the house and land which he had occupied.  Such property was conveyed to him by deed of March 3, 1919.

 

6. During her lifetime, Elaisa Lopez de Montoya exercised full dominion over the property described in Exhibit F to the Complaint, paid taxes thereon, executed various easements and conveyed portions thereof to various of her children.

 

7. Defendant Jose Paz Montoya is the son of Filomeno Montoya who was the son of Jose Lino Montoya by his second wife, and who executed a renunciation of inheritance from Jose Lino

Montoya excepting for the property he had occupied and to which he received a deed from Elaisa Lopez de Montoya.  Such renunciation constituted a valid disclaimer by Filomeno Montoya of any interest in the real estate described in the Complaint.

 

8. The heirs of Jose Lino Montoya and Elaisa Lopez de Montoya have agreed to a plan of partitioning the real estate described in Exhibit F to the Complaint, such plan of partitioning being more particularly described in Exhibits G through R of the Complaint, copies of which are attached, indicating the property descriptions and the names of the heirs to receive such property.

 

9. The proposed partitioning of the property is reasonable and should be approved.

 

10. The real estate described in Exhibit Q to the Complaint is subject to a 15-foot wide sewer line easement in favor of Defendant City of Santa Fe, which easement is described in Book 175, Pages 540 and 541, Records of Santa Fe County and in Book 24 at Page 246; the real estate described in Exhibit F to the Complaint is subject to easements for a roadway in favor of the

County of Santa Fe described in Book X at Pages 498, 501, 503 and 506; and to easements for power line and telephone lines in favor of Public Service Company of New Mexico and Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, which easements are described in Book D Contracts, (?) at page 420, Book 82 at page 231, Book 417 at pages 971 through 974 and Book 258 at Page 175.

 

11. Excepting for the easements set forth above and the property described in Exhibits H and N in behalf of Richard Patricio Rotunno and Robert Rotunno, named herein as defendants, none of the defendants named herein is entitled to any right, title or interest in or to the lands described in the Complaint, and the defaults of such defendants should be entered pursuant to the Certificate as to the State of the Record of the Clerk of the District Court. Further, that Richard Patricio Rotunno and Robert Rotunno are more properly described as party plaintiffs herein and have no claims adverse to the interests of the other plaintiffs.

 

12. Plaintiffs constitute a proper committee for the purpose of representing the heirs of the Estates of Jose Lino Mon­toya and Elaisa Lopez de Montoya, and should be empowered to;

execute in behalf of such heirs such deeds and other documents as may be necessary to effect partitioning of the real estate.

 

13. Plaintiffs have proven each and every allegation of their complaint, and are entitled to judgment in accordance with the prayer of their Complaint.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

The Court CONCLUDES as a matter of law:

 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter herein.

 

2. Plaintiffs are, or represent by agreement, all of the: heirs at law of the marriage of Elaisa Lopez de Montoya and Jose Lino Montoya.

 

3. The agreement for partition of the real estate described in the Complaint is fair and equitable and should be approved.

 

4. The parties named in Exhibits G through R attached hereto are, respectively owners in fee simple absolute of the properties described in such exhibits, subject only to the easements described in Finding of Fact No. 10 above.

 

5. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as prayed for in the Complaint.

 

Let Judgment be entered in accordance with the Decision of the Court.

 

Signed:

 

 

 

____________________________________

DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Tuesday, 13 March 2012 19:51

Around the Plaza in the 1930's and 40's

Contributed by

The following two photographs are of the original Mayflower Cafe on the south side of the Plaza. This restaurant was opened by Tom and Peter Pomonis (both were immigrants from Greece) in 1932. As one can see Goodman's Men's store was directly to the west of the restaurant. Directly to the east was the Capital City Cafe owned by John Ligits. The original Mayflower was decorated with cafe curtains at each booth for privacy (drinking hootch during Prohibition?) After Prohibition was repealed my father, Tom, told me that the restaurant was issued Santa Fe liquor license # 1The Pomonis brothers expanded the Mayflower into the Capital City Cafe in 1939 converting the old Mayflower to a cocktail lounge of the same name (Mayflower.) My father Tom operated the restaurant alone after his brother Peter died in 1941. The restaurant was given a contract to feed the draftees during WW II. Two meals a day were served to 75-125 draftees daily. After the war My father brought in as partner a young veteran of WW II named Angelos Klonis (Angelo eventually opened the famous SF bistro "Evangelos.") The restaurant remained in business until 1954. I personally worked during the summer months and holidays at the restaurant from the time I was 12 years of age where I peeled potatoes, scrubbed pots and pans, washed dishes, bused dishes, short order cook, waiter and cashier until 1953.

Saturday, 04 February 2012 00:04

Manuela Rivera ca. 1920

Contributed by

This is my grandmother.  The picture seems to be taken by a professional photographer.  Does anyone recognize the name of the photographer.  The picture would have been taken in Santa Fe around 1920.

Page 17 of 17

Additional information