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 Anthony Water & Sanitation District (AWSD) sought to appeal a decision by the New Mexico State Engineer regarding water rights. AWSD attempted to serve notice of appeal through publication but failed to meet the statutory requirements for timely service. Specifically, AWSD only published the notice once within the required 30-day period, instead of the four consecutive weekly publications mandated by statute (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Dona Ana County: Dismissed AWSD's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that AWSD failed to perfect its appeal by not complying with the statutory requirements for service of notice (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Applicant-Appellant (AWSD): Argued that Rule 1-074 NMRA 2002, rather than the statutory provisions of NMSA 1978, § 72-7-1, governs appeals from decisions of the State Engineer. AWSD also contended that the statute does not require all four publications to occur within the 30-day limit and that its failure to meet the publication requirements did not prejudice the other parties (paras 2, 6, 9, 14).
• Respondent-Appellee (State Engineer): Asserted that the statutory requirements for service of notice are mandatory and jurisdictional, and AWSD's failure to comply with these requirements rendered the appeal invalid (paras 3, 5, 11).
• Protestants-Appellees (Elephant Butte Irrigation District and others): Supported the State Engineer's position, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with the statutory requirements for service of notice (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Does Rule 1-074 NMRA 2002 supersede the statutory requirements of NMSA 1978, § 72-7-1 for appeals from decisions of the State Engineer?
• Does NMSA 1978, § 72-7-1 require all four publications of notice to occur within the 30-day statutory period?
• Can the failure to meet statutory service requirements be excused if there is no prejudice to the other parties?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of AWSD's appeal for lack of jurisdiction (para 16).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Pickard and Fry JJ. concurring):

• The Court declined to address AWSD's argument that Rule 1-074 NMRA 2002 supersedes the statutory requirements because the argument was not preserved at the district court level. However, the Court expressed doubt about the validity of this argument, noting that appeals from the State Engineer are constitutionally required to be tried de novo, which differs from the appellate review contemplated by Rule 1-074 (paras 2, 8).
• The Court held that NMSA 1978, § 72-7-1 requires strict compliance with its service provisions, including completing all four publications of notice within the 30-day statutory period. The plain language of the statute and prior case law support this interpretation (paras 3, 10-11).
• The Court rejected AWSD's argument that compliance with the publication requirement is nearly impossible, noting that AWSD could have prepared for service during the pendency of the State Engineer's decision or served notice in the manner of a civil summons instead of by publication (paras 12-13).
• The Court dismissed AWSD's claim that the lack of prejudice to the other parties excused its failure to comply with the statutory requirements, emphasizing that actual notice is irrelevant when the statute mandates specific service procedures (para 14).
• The Court found no basis to excuse AWSD's failure to preserve its arguments or to create jurisdiction through new arguments on appeal (para 15).