This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A developer sought approval for a subdivision plat in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Santa Fe City Planning Commission conditionally approved the application, but a neighborhood association appealed to the City Council, which reversed the approval. The developer obtained an ex parte writ of mandamus from the district court to compel automatic approval of the plat, but the writ was dissolved, and the City Council proceeded to deny the application (paras 3-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 21, 1997: Dissolved the writ of mandamus obtained by the developer, ruling that the City Council's hearing was timely under the statute (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Developer): Argued that the City Council failed to act within the statutory 35-day period, entitling the developer to automatic approval of the plat. Claimed that the appeal should proceed to avoid a lack of adequate remedy at law and that the approval of the plat was a ministerial action appropriate for mandamus (paras 8, 13-14).
- Respondents (City of Santa Fe and Neighborhood Association): Contended that the appeal was moot due to the City Council's reversal of the plat approval, that the dissolution of the writ was not a final, appealable order, and that piecemeal appeals should not be allowed. They also argued that the developer failed to exhaust administrative remedies (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Did the developer fail to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief?
- Was the dissolution of the writ of mandamus a final, appealable order?
- Should the appeal be dismissed to prevent piecemeal litigation?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the developer failed to exhaust administrative remedies, an adequate remedy at law existed, and piecemeal appeals should not be permitted (paras 9, 16).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Bustamante and Armijo JJ. concurring):
The court held that the developer failed to exhaust administrative remedies by bypassing the statutory process for challenging planning decisions. Mandamus is not appropriate when an appeal process is available, and the developer had not demonstrated any exceptional harm or expense that would justify bypassing the administrative process. The court emphasized the policy against piecemeal appeals, noting that the issues raised in this appeal were also pending in the district court. To avoid influencing the merits of the ongoing district court case, the court dismissed the appeal rather than affirming the district court's decision (paras 9-15).