AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over water rights between neighboring property owners. The Defendants had previously obtained a court judgment affirming their prior rights to water from a shared creek and enjoining the Plaintiff's family from obstructing the water flow. Subsequently, the Plaintiff applied for a permit to appropriate water from the creek, which was denied by the state engineer due to insufficient water to accommodate the Plaintiff's request without infringing on the Defendants' established rights (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, 1994: Declared the Defendants had prior rights to the creek's water and enjoined the Plaintiff's family from obstructing the water flow (para 2).
• Court of Appeals, 1995: Affirmed that the Defendants did not require a permit to use water stored in their pond for irrigation under the then-applicable statute (para 2).
• State Engineer, March 1999: Denied the Plaintiff's application for a water permit and request for a post-decision hearing, citing insufficient water and the Defendants' prior rights (paras 3-4).
• District Court, January 2000: Dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Plaintiff failed to serve all parties within the statutory 30-day period (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Plaintiff): Argued that the state engineer was required to hold a post-decision hearing under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16, and that the appeal was timely because service was completed within 30 days of the state engineer's denial of the post-decision hearing request (paras 7, 16).
• Appellees (Defendants and State Engineer): Contended that the Plaintiff waived the right to a post-decision hearing by opposing a pre-decision hearing and that the appeal was untimely because service on all parties was not completed within 30 days of the state engineer's initial decision (paras 7, 17).

Legal Issues

• Was the state engineer required to hold a post-decision hearing under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16, when no pre-decision hearing was held?
• Did the Plaintiff's failure to serve all parties within 30 days of the state engineer's initial decision deprive the district court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the appeal and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand it to the state engineer for a post-decision hearing (para 20).

Reasons

Per Fry J. (Bosson CJ and Robinson J. concurring):

• The Court held that under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16, the state engineer was required to hold a post-decision hearing when no pre-decision hearing had been conducted. The statute guarantees an aggrieved party the right to one hearing, and the Plaintiff did not waive this right by opposing a pre-decision hearing (paras 9-13).
• The Court found that the Plaintiff's appeal was timely because the 30-day period for serving notices of appeal began only after the state engineer denied the Plaintiff's request for a post-decision hearing. Service on the Defendants was therefore timely (paras 14, 16).
• Regarding service on the state engineer, the Court clarified that while service on the attorney general is required for the court to render judgment against the state engineer, it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the district court to hear the appeal. The Plaintiff could still serve the attorney general after the 30-day period (paras 17-19).