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 Defendant purchased a property in 1987, intending to use it for short-term rentals. The City of Santa Fe enacted a zoning amendment prohibiting such rentals in the area, leading to cease-and-desist orders against the Defendant. The Defendant had contracts to sell the property, contingent on its lawful use for short-term rentals, but these contracts fell through due to the zoning dispute. The Defendant ultimately lost the property in foreclosure (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The trial court ruled against the Defendant on its inverse condemnation claim, finding that the City's actions did not cause the Defendant's damages (headnotes, para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the City's actions, including the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, amounted to a taking or damage to its contract rights, entitling it to $2,000,000 in compensation for lost sales contracts (paras 5-6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the City's actions constitute a taking or damage to the Defendant's property or contract rights under the New Mexico Constitution?
- Was the Defendant entitled to damages for lost profits resulting from the City's zoning enforcement?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Defendant was not entitled to the claimed damages (para 12).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Black and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant's claim for $2,000,000 in lost profits was not recoverable under the takings or damages provisions of the New Mexico Constitution. The proper measure of damages for a temporary taking is the difference in the property's fair market value before and after the restriction, adjusted for the market rate of return during the restriction period. The Defendant failed to provide evidence of such damages and instead relied on an improper measure of damages based on lost profits from contingent sales contracts. The Court also rejected the argument that the City's actions constituted a taking of contract rights, as the enforcement of a general zoning law does not amount to a direct abrogation of contract rights. The trial court's ruling was therefore upheld (paras 1, 7-11).