Magistrate court had subject matter jurisdiction when it decided claim for
possession. — Where the parties entered into a lease option contract pursuant to
which plaintiff agreed to lease and defendant agreed to rent a residential property in
Vanderwagen, New Mexico for sixty months, and where the lease option contract
included an option to purchase the residence at any time during the contract’s terms,
and where defendant paid plaintiff $10,000 that defendant claimed to be a down
payment toward the purchase price of the property but which was not mentioned in the
lease option contract, and where defendant stopped making monthly payments on the
property after two years, and where plaintiff filed a petition for restitution seeking
possession of the property in magistrate court, and where the magistrate court granted
the writ of restitution and awarded damages, past-due rent, and attorney fees, and
where, on appeal, defendant claimed that the magistrate court did not have subject
matter jurisdiction because defendant was not occupying the property pursuant to a
rental agreement but pursuant to a contract for the sale of the real property, the
magistrate court did not err in exercising jurisdiction because the plain language of the
parties’ lease option contract demonstrates that the parties entered into a rental
agreement as defined in NMSA 1978 § 47-8-3 and subject to the Uniform Owner-
Resident Relations Act (UORRA), and the plain language of NMSA 1978 § 47-8-10(A)
demonstrates that the legislature has endowed magistrate courts with subject matter
jurisdiction over claims arising from any conduct in this state governed by the UORRA
or with respect to any claim arising from a transaction subject to UORRA for a dwelling
located within its jurisdictional boundaries.