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 City of Sunland Park annexed approximately 37.186 acres of land, including private parcels owned by a company and public lands such as a state highway and a border strip. The annexation was challenged on the grounds that it failed to include streets bordering the annexed territory, as required by law (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 1997: The district court upheld the annexation, finding that the City acted lawfully, based on substantial evidence, and within its authority. The court also ruled that the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (Highway Department) and Paseo Del Norte Limited Partnership (PDN) had standing to challenge the annexation, while allowing Dona Ana County to intervene (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Highway Department, PDN, and Dona Ana County): Argued that the annexation was invalid due to procedural irregularities, including the failure to annex streets bordering the territory, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-18. They also contended that the City failed to comply with statutory notice requirements and lacked proper consent for annexing public lands (paras 1, 5-6, 17).
- Respondent (City of Sunland Park): Asserted that the annexation was valid, arguing that the statutory requirement to annex bordering streets did not apply to state highways or was satisfied automatically. The City also challenged the standing of the Highway Department and PDN to appeal the annexation (paras 8-11, 18-21).
Legal Issues
- Did the Highway Department and PDN have standing to challenge the annexation?
- Was the annexation invalid due to the failure to include streets bordering the annexed territory, as required by NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-18?
- Could the City modify or automatically include adjacent streets in the annexation without explicit inclusion in the petition?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the annexation was invalid due to the failure to include bordering streets. The case was remanded with instructions to set aside the annexation ordinance (paras 1, 27-28).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Wechsler and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Standing: The Highway Department had standing under NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-17(C), as it held an equitable ownership interest in the state highway within the annexed territory. PDN, however, lacked standing because it did not own land within the annexed area (paras 12-16).
Failure to Annex Bordering Streets: The annexation violated NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-18, which mandates the inclusion of streets bordering annexed territory. The Court rejected the City's argument that the statute did not apply to state highways or that the requirement was satisfied automatically. The Court held that "streets" include the entire right-of-way, not just the roadway, and that compliance with Section 3-7-18 was mandatory (paras 17-21).
Modification or Automatic Inclusion: The Court found no statutory authority allowing the City to modify the annexation petition to include omitted streets or to deem them automatically annexed. Such an interpretation would conflict with statutory notice requirements and the consent requirement for annexing public lands under NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-4(A) (paras 22-25).
Majority Ownership Requirement: Including the omitted streets in the annexation would have increased the total acreage, rendering the petition invalid because the signatory did not own a majority of the land. This further supported the Court's decision to invalidate the annexation (para 26).
The Court concluded that the annexation ordinance was invalid and remanded the case to set it aside (paras 27-28).