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 involves a licensed real estate appraiser (Licensee) who entered into a settlement agreement with the New Mexico Real Estate Appraiser’s Board (the Board) following complaints against him. The agreement required the Licensee to complete specific conditions, including probation, payment of fees, continuing education, and monitoring. The Board later determined that the Licensee failed to meet these conditions by the deadline and suspended his license for two years (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Real Estate Appraiser’s Board, November 21, 2005: The Board suspended the Licensee’s license for two years for failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement (para 6).
- District Court of Valencia County, January 2007: The district court reversed the Board’s decision, finding the suspension capricious and unreasonable, and ordered the Licensee to be removed from probationary status (paras 7, 16).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Board): Argued that the district court improperly considered evidence outside the administrative record, failed to apply the correct standard of review, and should have enforced the settlement agreement, which was a valid contract. The Board also contended that its findings were supported by substantial evidence (para 2).
- Appellee (Licensee): Claimed that he complied with the settlement agreement by the extended deadline he believed applied, argued political bias and lack of proper notice, and asserted that the Board acted unreasonably and capriciously in suspending his license (paras 14, 16).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err by considering evidence outside the administrative record?
- Did the district court fail to apply the proper standard of review in reversing the Board’s decision?
- Was the Board’s decision to suspend the Licensee’s license supported by substantial evidence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 24).
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Cynthia A. Fry and Michael E. Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly considered evidence outside the administrative record, including the Licensee’s compliance efforts after the November 15, 2005, deadline and the December 2005 hearing. The district court also failed to afford proper deference to the Board’s factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that administrative appeals are limited to the record created at the agency level and that courts must evaluate whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, not substitute their judgment for that of the agency. The Board’s decision to suspend the Licensee’s license was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence (paras 17-23).