Tres Orejas Community Website

I’m back with my citizen journalism. This post covers two separate but related things happening in Tres Orejas, the ongoing litigation over the 65 acre green land parcel and the current situation with a part of that land being used as an animal rescue.

Yes, the litigation is still going on. A bench trial date was set for June 4th this year last fall. In the meantime, a whole slew of papers and motions have been filed in the case, the most notable of which is a motion filed by the plaintiff’s attorney to reopen the original quiet title suit from 2004 and set aside the default judgment from 20 years ago. A hearing on the motion is set for May 20th. The motion itself is just a rehash of the continuing argument made both by Solare’s attorney in 2004 and her current one: That only someone with a claim on the property in conflict with Solare’s has any legal standing in the case and the neighbors and the community as a whole who will be affected by it don’t count. This fails to take into account that Solare’s claim of ownership of the property is entirely fictitious and was even more so in 2004 when the first suit was filed and she had not paid any taxes on the land nor occupied it long enough to have any claim of adverse possession. At the time, judge Peggy Nelson saw right though it and allowed the intervention by several neighbors to proceed. I doubt that the motion to set aside the 20 year old default judgment will succeed and the case will proceed to trial in June. The trial is technically not on the new quiet title suit which was withdrawn by the plaintiff but on whether what was decided in 2004 still stands or whether circumstances have changed and Solare has advanced a claim of adverse possession which would grant her a claim on at least part of the land. This would be the house built on it and the payment of taxes on some of the lots. The house was under construction in 2004 and all kinds of claims and counter claims on the taxes have been made, the gist of which is that the taxes were paid on some lots but not continuously since 2004, that instead the back taxes were paid just a few years ago and the attempt was made to make it look like they were actually paid starting 2004. The other part of her adverse possession claim, “color of title” is based on the the questionable deeds she’s filed with the county clerk’s office, all of which are clearly written by her own hand. These are the facts as far as I know them. Being responsible in my citizen journalism, I will state that what follows is opinion and what I think about them.

One possible outcome is that the court decides that the circumstances have changed for at least some of the lots and that would mean Solare could refile the quiet title suit on them. The unforeseen consequences of that are not good: That would mean that the rest of the lots are up for grabs to any grifter who put something on them and paid the taxes. This could apply as well to all the other Great Southwestern lots scattered through Carson Estates, it doesn’t just affect the land in the suit. I don’t see that as any better than Solare winning a default judgment on the whole 65 acres. It would mean chaos and disruption for the neighbors and an influx of real estate grifters into the community instead of all of it going to just one. The only good outcome for the health and stability of the community is for the land to remain as it is at least for the present. It was brought up back in 2004 that the only fair way to deal with the “green” land situation would be to have the New Mexico State Legislature pass a bill on it with input from all parties concerned, that would include the county assessor and treasurer and all land owners in the Great Southwestern Subdivisions who have property bordering green lots, especially those who have paid taxes on them.

Regarding the former TMAS site at the center of this litigation, it was brought to my attention that another animal rescue non-profit was apparently operating on the site and they made a Facebook post claiming to have 30 dogs which is 20 more than the county regulations would allow on the site. I was forwarded a photo from the post which does look like the view of my neighborhood from the rescue. I did some checking on it and from other photos on their website and Facebook, it doesn’t look like they’re operating exclusively from the former TMAS site and I can’t say how many dogs are currently there but I have heard more dog noise from it recently. When I checked out the website, I found that I’ve met one of the people involved and I didn’t get the impression that they were in any way insincere in the animal rescue efforts. That being said, if there are too many dogs on site, it will cause problems with the neighbors who will complain to the county about it. It would be better for all parties concerned for them to be transparent and honest about what they’re doing there. One of the big problems TMAS had was, apart from too many dogs and cats, was that the TMAS founder did her best to keep what was going on secret from the surrounding community and treated the neighbors who objected to it with aggression and hostility. She also gave the impression that her non-profit was putting a lot more energy into fund raising than actual care of the animals and, with the cost of her ongoing litigation, that impression was justified. I have received one comment from someone in Texas who said there were problems with the new non-profit in the new location and this is the same person who is paying a law firm to aggressively litigate her claim to the site so the neighbors are very touchy about what goes on there. A specific incident reported to me is one of the dogs getting loose and killing a neighbor’s chicken. It came with a comment that some of the elderly neighbors are now nervous about going for walks in the area.