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 County of Doña Ana sought to condemn a 0.682-acre strip of land owned by the Defendants for highway improvements. A preliminary order of entry was issued, allowing the County to enter the property after depositing $5,050 with the court. The County removed 2,800 cubic yards of soil from the property before the order was made permanent. The Defendants objected to the preliminary order and sought compensation for the land and the removed soil (paras 5-8).

Procedural History

• District Court, November 19, 1987: The court denied the Defendants' objections to the preliminary order of entry but required the County to post a $25,000 bond. The court later scheduled a trial to determine compensation (para 7).
• District Court, October 31, 1988: The court made the preliminary order of entry permanent nunc pro tunc as of November 19, 1987. The jury awarded compensation to the Defendants but excluded damages for the removed soil (paras 8-10).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the date of taking should be October 31, 1988, when the preliminary order was made permanent, and sought additional compensation for the removed soil. They contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the soil's value and in instructing the jury on the date of taking (paras 11, 14).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (County): Asserted that the valuation date should be May 26, 1987, when the condemnation petition was filed. The County agreed to a new trial with a revised valuation date but disagreed with the Defendants on what that date should be (paras 14).

Legal Issues

• Does the New Mexico Uniform Jury Instruction (UJI Civil 13-704) conflict with Section 42-2-15(A) regarding the date of valuation in a condemnation proceeding?
• What is the proper date for valuing property taken in a condemnation proceeding under the Special Alternative Condemnation Procedure?
• Are the Defendants entitled to additional compensation for the removed soil?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the judgment of the district court (para 26).

Reasons

Per Montgomery J. (Baca and Frost JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that under Article II, Section 20 of the New Mexico Constitution, the date of taking is the date the condemnor gains possession, dominion, and control over the property. This occurs when the preliminary order of entry becomes effective, not when the condemnation petition is filed or the order is made permanent (paras 4, 17-19).
• Section 42-2-15(A), which sets the valuation date as the filing of the petition, was deemed unconstitutional to the extent it conflicts with the constitutional requirement for just compensation (paras 16, 20).
• The Court clarified that the date of taking in this case was August 7, 1987, when the preliminary order became effective upon the County's deposit of $5,050. The trial court's instruction of November 19, 1987, as the date of taking was incorrect but did not result in reversible error because the jury's award already accounted for the removed soil (paras 19, 24-26).
• The Court modified prior rulings in Hesselden and Yurcic to align with this interpretation, holding that the date of taking is when the preliminary order becomes effective, not when it is made permanent (paras 21, 23).