Although the New Mexico courts do not appear to have defined conditional sales, they have referred to them in numerous cases, and have never expressed confusion as to what they are. See, e.g., MGIC Mortg. Corp. v. Bowen, 572 P.2d 547, 548-49 (N.M. 1977); Toulouse v. Chilili Coop. Ass'n, 770 P.2d 542, 544 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). The closest the New Mexico Supreme Court has come to defining conditional-sales contracts is to explain that their purpose "is to give the seller security for the purchase price of property agreed to be sold by the terms of the instrument."
[w]here there is a deed, and contract to re-convey, and oral evidence has been introduced tending to show that the transaction was one of security, and leaving upon the mind a well-founded doubt as to the nature of the transaction, then courts of equity incline to construe the transaction as a mortgage. 2002 SD 10, ¶ 15, 639 N.W.2d at 535 (alteration in original) (quoting Wilson, 16 S.D. 96, 91 N.W. at 456 (citation omitted)); Tonloase n. Chilili Co-op Ass'n, 108 N.M. 220, 770 P.2d 542 (N.M.Ct.App. 1989) ("[o]ne test which may be applied in determining the nature of the transaction is whether there exists mutuality and reciprocity of rights between the parties"); F. Gregorie. Son, 257 S.E.2d at 703 (essentially "the mere fact that a contract to reconvey was executed simultaneously with the deed creates in legal effect a mortgage"). [¶ 27.] The fact that the conveyance and contract for deed were executed on the same day creates a strong doubt on whether this transaction was intended to be a sale.