There will be a community meeting on Sunday August 3rd at the West Rim MDWUA well site for the purpose of forming a neighborhood association for Tres Orejas. The meeting will follow the West Rim MDWUA annual members meeting and use the site and facilities for the West Rim meeting. Forming a neighborhood association is a response to the ongoing land grab attempt of unsold Great Southwestern land. In the court filings, Solare’s attorney has tried repeatedly to deny any community interest in the case or even the existence of a community in Tres Orejas. In fact there is a huge community interest in this. What happens with this land will have a huge impact on the surrounding community and there are many more lots of Great Southwestern land scattered throughout Tres Orejas and the other Great Southwestern subdivisions. Letting one unscrupulous land grab succeed will open the flood gate for others and we could be overrun with land grabbers and squatters.
Since my last post there have been two court hearings. In the first on May 20th, the motion to set aside the default judgment from 2004 was denied on the legal grounds that the motion was made far too late, 20 years being way beyond any reasonable time to make such a motion. The attorneys for Solare at first intended to appeal that judgment and, it looks like, later withdrew their intent to appeal. This resulted in the original bench trial date of June 4th being vacated. Another hearing was held on July 16th and a new date was set for November 5th and 6th. There have also been attempts from Solare’s attorneys for a mediated settlement. The settlement proposals I’ve seen from them have always overwhelmingly favored solare. The strategy from this most recent one seems to be to threaten an extremely expensive appeal and then offer a settlement that gives Solare everything she wanted including passing the motion she just lost on in court. After following the case since its first incarnation in 2004 and reviewing all the court filings in its latest round and attending most of the hearings, there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of Solare’s attorneys to do anything and everything possible to avoid the case being judged on its merits and run up the litigation costs and win the case by financially exhausting the other side. This has been done by filing numerous frivolous motions that are destined to fail but still have to be responded to with court filings and hearings that cost expensive legal fees. The legal fees in the proposed appeal were a double edged sword and would apply equally to both parties which is why I think it wasn’t followed through on. From what I’ve heard, Solare’s new rescue in Texas is having some issues and perhaps the money isn’t there. In the hearing on July 16th, Solare’s attorney did mention the intent to file another motion on the 2004 case. I do see a motivation for trying to have the judgment in that case altered or set aside. Solare originally filed a claim on the whole 65 acre parcel of unsold Great Southwestern land. If that judgment was set aside, the whole parcel would be open to her claim once again. In the current case, it looks like the best she could do is to win a small portion of it by actual adverse possession, the part she actually used to build a house on at minimum. Her animal sanctuary was an obvious attempt to justify a bigger claim but in terms of actual possession, there’s not more than a few acres she actually used and paid taxes on in any continuous manner. I should mention that New Mexico state law is fairly strict when it comes to adverse possession. In addition to actually using the land and paying taxes on it, it requires what’s referred to in legal terms as “color of title”. This is some sort of deed or document that that was accepted in “good faith” as being legitimate and led to an honest mistake being made as to either ownership of a property or its boundaries. New Mexico has these laws due to the land grabs of the 19th century when it went from Mexican to US law and jurisdiction and Spanish speaking New Mexicans lost huge amounts of land due to not being familiar with the US legal system. Once they integrated into the US and learned English and started to have influence in the state government, they passed laws that made such land grabs more difficult. As far as Solare’s claim, there is no “good faith” in it at all. The deeds she has filed for the property are all written in her own hand. Both deeds she filed in 2023 were signed in 2004 by people who had no ownership of the property. It’s obvious from her history of real estate transactions in the area that she knew exactly what she was doing and what the property was worth. She owned several lots in 2003-2004 and sold them all. I know of a couple of recent property transactions in Tres Orejas in which she acted as the realtor and in one case, the title is so messed up the new owner can’t register the deed with the county clerk and in both, the buyers feel they paid far more than the property was worth.
9 responses to “Community Meeting and Court Case Update”
Just after posting this, I received the latest legal briefs filed in the court case. The new trial date is November 5th and 6th and I revised the post with that information. Solare’s attorneys also filed a motion to reconsider the motion to reopen the 2004 case that was denied in the May 16th hearing citing obscure legal reasons for the most part. There was also a request for a hearing in the matter. This follows a pattern of attempting to have the judge reconsider motions already denied and in the process, requiring additional legal work and associated fees. In practical terms, this is just beating a dead horse. 2004 is a generation ago. As previously stated, the rewards of succeeding in this legal long shot would be to open the whole 65 acres of valuable real estate to the land grab, not just the small portion that Solare has actually occupied. The brief also repeats the argument that none of the “plaintiffs in intervention” have any real interest in the property and therefore, no legal standing to oppose Solare’s claim. This is oblivious to the fact that Solare herself had no real interest in the property in 2004. She just became aware of the fact that there was no legal owner of the property and if she filed a quiet title suit, it would likely go to a default judgment even though she had no title to the property in any sense. What she didn’t count on is that it would have a huge impact on the surrounding community which prompted some of her neighbors to go to the trouble and expense of a court intervention.
Also brought to my attention in a couple of text messages. Taxes on the property that have been paid have not been paid continuously as the law regarding adverse possession requires but instead were paid in a chunk a few years ago to give the false impression that they were paid continuously since 2004. As a side note, no taxes whatsoever were paid by Solare for her initial suit of 2004 nor were any deeds filed in that suit even though she had the ones she filed in 2023 in her possession.
…not to mention said lawsuit plaintiff and complainer doesn’t own one piece of land. Those of us living in the Tres Orejas neighborhood bought our land either from the county auction, from a previous owner, or inherited it. If we have “green land” around us, we pay taxes on it and do so consistently to protect the land, not to profit from it. New Comers who live here (the phrase Taoseños love/hate to use and hear) need to learn about the history of this land, and mostly how to protect it, not steal it, profit from it, or encourage others to do so. We’re here to simply live and simply live in peace. We’ve been paying taxes on our lots some since the late 60s and early 70s, most of the old timers here, having paid their property taxes since the late 70s and early 80s consistently. The person mentioned above in the law suit doesn’t live here. The Manby case is the apt comparison, almost to a T. We don’t welcome that kind of dealing here, no, not in our ‘hood.
If you want to be a neighbor or consider yourself a neighbor, buy your lot, pay taxes, be legit in whatever capacity you’re able. Respect those who came before you, those who paved the way and demonstrated for many generations how to live well.
Keep your exterior lights off at night and draw your curtains. If you need bright lights on at night, this is not your place. PLEASE Protect our Dark Skies.
Slow down on the roads. Speeding on these roads (ie: more than 15-20mph on Flag RD) kicks up the gravel and keeps our windshields cracking and also wrecks the roads that get little attention as it is from the county. If you’re in that much of a hurry, you’re in the wrong neighborhood.
Keep your generators off at night. There are noise ordinances that address how that’s a violation. Emergencies are a different story of course.
Thanks for keeping us up to date…
What are the implications of running a non profit such as Paws to the Wall if they’re squatting land with no special permit, running water? They have received a grant from the Taos Community Foundation this past June. So if you want to bark up someone’s tree outside of court this may be a start. It may not even be illegal to take the grant, just declaring this fact.
I always said that a community association was a helpful way to go green land Is a great way to go. I would be happy to donate into a fund to acquire green land in section 3.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend this meeting. If I could I would in a heartbeat.
Glad Paws people showed up at the first Tres Orejas organizing neighborhood meeting but they are misinformed thinking they don’t need a special use permit to operate their rescue.
There is an animal ordinance that they must know about which has been posted in other prior articles on this website and is easily found by searching the web. More than nine dogs require a special use permit. It doesn’t matter if they’re a 501C3, this is clear, but yes, we must keep trying to get some basic understanding from them.
That’s exactly what the prior squatter thought because she had funding. She thought she could go ahead and operate the shelter / rescue but it doesn’t matter if it’s dogs or llamas. A rescue or shelter, no matter the name, has to have a special use permit if there’re more than nine animals. That’s a statewide as well as specific to Taos County animal ordinance.
What about the barking for prolonged periods that violates the noise ordinance?
These are ordinances that the county and the state have written up and apply as law through the county animal control – at least they’re supposed to. The county needs to be contacted repeatedly and a neighborhood unified association’s voice may help that listening with some follow up action occur.
it’s not just anybody’s opinion for good or bad. It’s the way it is because we’ve all as a citizen group came together at some point with our elected officials and said this is what we can tolerate, not to mention what is appropriate for animal care, more than 9 is against the law without permits and all the structural requirements in place to gain such a permit.
Remember; a special use permit requires a special hearing in front of a judge and it takes about a year to two for the process to go through after all neighbors have a chance to weigh in once the application has been submitted to the county.
For some reason the rescue shelter aren’t getting these clear points. I don’t understand what’s unclear about it. Shelter/rescues don’t have special exemption just because they have a rescue.
What’s the point of the ordinance then?
Finally, what this rescue misses egregiously is that while they love animals, their presence here has upset the once peaceful balance among ALL animals that live in the wild area of western Taos County and specifically Tres Orejas.
All the animals have been upset by hearing and sensing – which they are so good at – the distress of the caged up or otherwise housed feral animals. Humans who live with animals here have never let barking gone on for a few minutes. It’s our dogs doing their jobs warning we humans and others of what ever. There is a dog pack now that didn’t exist before the rescue arrived. The animals band together as a balance against the threatening and distressing barking of the rescue dogs. That’s just animal science. Nothing special but it’s new and completely a result of the shelter being here.
Folks, don’t let your dogs roam. We’re all threatened now just to take simple walks in our once serene neighborhood. That should not be!
Coyotes who are an integral part of our healthy eco system here have all but dispersed to further parts.
I don’t buy the message of a heartfelt love for one species when all others have been fundamentally disturbed. Another solution, in a place with water on site and proper environment that a neighborhood or community has a chance to decide upon, is what and where this rescue needs to turn their attention and energy. It’s not about them personally. It’s about the entire mess that was created a few years ago, the lack of understanding on the part of the shelter and is being perpetuated by well meaning but misinformed humans who fail or refuse to see the big picture.
I’m afraid that you are actually refusing to see the big picture. Have you tried asking them about any of this without anything other than hostility and accusation? No, you haven’t.
If you did, you would realize that they understand your points and hate that the community is being disrupted but we are being utterly failed by our county in terms of animal control and welfare. Did you know that we don’t even currently HAVE an animal control officer? Did you know that the people running this rescue get daily calls about dead dogs, lost dogs, injured dogs, aggressive dogs and there is no one else here willing to help with this public health and safety issue taking place in our community. No you havent because it’s easier to point your finger and say that everything would be fixed if they were no longer here.
The rescue came from witnessing dogs suffering, packing up, and threatening our friends and neighbors so your accusation of feral dog packs roaming the mesa being caused by “distressed animals kept in cages” is absolutely laughable.
Please, do continue to contact your representatives and your government, they need to take responsibility for the fact that this rescue is forced to exist here. And get off your high horse assuming that you know better than those around you who are working their backs off every single day to help YOU
Never in my life have I done more for a community but the work that\’s done is undervalued and unappreciated, while being some of the most selfless and exhausting thing i\’ve commited time to in my life. The irony will never fail to astound and amuse me, a \’neighborhood\’ association being established where a leading goal is to evict two of the hardest working people for the community. Dogs will always be a issue on the mesa and taos county as a whole, the people trying to fix this are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution to this, but the way you treat us, you dont deserve the work we put into this community. But yet we continue to help. Scanning lost dogs, taxi-ing people\’s pets for spay/neuters, or spending out of pocket to keep cats and dogs fed when others can\’t afford to do so. You may hear the occasional bark, but it\’s never for hours on end, we wake up, we respond, we\’re responsible owners. As shown we are happy to be active members of the community but you should take a look at the mission of the T.O.N.A when it\’s current goals are to chase away people that are working hard to better the community.
I disagree with the statement that the neighborhood association is being founded to chase away to people involved with Paws to the Wall. It is a side issue in the land grab that Ariana Solare is attempting in the community. That is one of the main motivations for a neighborhood association but not the only one and the green land issue is what is important, not the dogs on one piece of green land among many in Tres Orejas. Some of us do understand the situation with the sanctuary and there was a lot of support expressed for what you’re doing at the meeting, the problem is where you’re doing it and the fact that Ariana Solare left a lot of negativity that you’re going to have to deal with whether you like it or not. That negativity has manifested itself in the aggressive and expensive legal strategy that Solare and her attorneys are using in the land grab attempt. I’m sorry that some of the blow back to that aggression touches you. I feel that you are being taken advantage of by her just as so many others have.