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 concerns a protest against an application by Metropolitan Investments, Inc. to the state engineer to change the location and purpose of a water right in the Rio Grande Basin. The protestant, along with others, opposed the application. The state engineer approved the application, and the protestant sought to appeal the decision, arguing procedural deficiencies in the notification process (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State Engineer, October 19, 1987: Approved Metropolitan Investments, Inc.'s application to change the location and purpose of a water right (para 3).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Date (N/A): Dismissed the protestant's appeal for failure to timely serve notice of appeal on the applicant (para 4).
• District Court of Sandoval County, Date (N/A): Dismissed the protestant's appeal for failure to timely serve notice of appeal on the applicant (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Protestant (Appellant): Argued that the state engineer's decision was invalid because the protestant was not personally notified of the decision, and that the thirty-day appeal period should not have commenced until such personal notice was received. Additionally, the protestant claimed substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for perfecting the appeal and argued that the failure to timely serve the applicant should be excused as neglect (paras 5, 13-14, 16).
• Applicant (Respondent): Contended that the protestant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve notice of appeal on all interested parties within thirty days, rendering the appeal invalid. The applicant also argued that service on the protestant's attorney satisfied the statutory notice requirements (paras 4, 9, 13).
• State Engineer (Party in Interest): Supported the dismissal of the appeals, asserting that the protestant failed to meet the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal, including timely service on the applicant (paras 4, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the state engineer's decision to notify the protestant's attorney, rather than the protestant personally, satisfied the statutory requirements for notice (para 5).
• Whether the protestant's failure to timely serve the applicant with notice of appeal invalidated the appeal (para 13).
• Whether the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal under Section 72-7-1(B) are mandatory and jurisdictional (para 16).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the protestant's appeals by the district courts (para 21).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the state engineer's decision to notify the protestant's attorney by certified mail satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 72-7-1(B). The statute does not mandate personal notice to the protestant when the protestant is represented by counsel (paras 9-12).
• The Court emphasized that the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal, including timely service of notice on all interested parties, are mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply with these requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal (paras 13, 16).
• The Court rejected the protestant's argument of excusable neglect, noting that the record lacked evidence of reasonable diligence in attempting to serve the applicant within the statutory period. The Court also highlighted that alternative methods of service, such as publication, were available but not utilized (paras 14-17).
• The Court found no due process violation, as the protestant was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to present evidence regarding service issues but failed to do so (paras 19-20).