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 Bernalillo initiated a condemnation proceeding under the special alternative condemnation procedure to acquire a portion of a 12.5-acre parcel owned by Uptown Associates, Ltd., as part of a project to improve Tramway Boulevard. The County sought approximately one-sixth of an acre and estimated damages at $48,000, while Uptown claimed damages exceeding $1.5 million, including damages to the remainder of the parcel due to the relocation of Tramway. A permanent order of entry was issued, but the County never physically occupied the land and later sought to dismiss the proceeding.
Procedural History
- District Court, December 1990: Issued a permanent order of entry under Section 42-2-6(C).
- District Court, May 1992: Denied the County's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding and its motion for partial summary judgment on damages.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (County of Bernalillo): Argued that it retained the right to unilaterally abandon the condemnation proceeding before final judgment and sought dismissal of the action, offering to pay costs, attorney fees, and other litigation expenses. Alternatively, it argued that Uptown should not be entitled to damages related to the relocation of Tramway.
- Respondent (Uptown Associates, Ltd.): Contended that the County could not abandon the proceeding after the permanent order of entry, as the taking was complete at that point. It argued that allowing abandonment would violate the constitutional guarantee of just compensation and relied on prior case law to support its position.
Legal Issues
- Whether a condemnor retains the right to unilaterally abandon a condemnation proceeding after a permanent order of entry has been issued.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the County's motion for partial summary judgment on damages related to the relocation of Tramway.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the County's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding.
- The Court of Appeals declined to address the denial of the County's motion for partial summary judgment, as it was rendered moot by the dismissal.
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Alarid and Flores JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the County retained the right to unilaterally abandon the condemnation proceeding at any time before final judgment confirming the compensation award. The statutory scheme under the special alternative condemnation procedure does not explicitly preclude abandonment after a permanent order of entry, and the Court interpreted the legislative intent to allow flexibility for condemnors to mitigate damages and avoid unnecessary public expenditures.
The Court distinguished prior case law, such as State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Burks and State ex rel. State Highway Department v. Yurcic, which addressed different issues and did not preclude abandonment before final judgment. The Court also relied on principles of equity and public policy, emphasizing that the landowner must still be compensated for any temporary taking and related expenses.
The Court remanded the case to the trial court to assess damages for the temporary taking and other equitable expenses but clarified that Uptown was not entitled to damages based on the relocation of Tramway, as there was no permanent taking of its property.