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 Developer sought to subdivide 1,300 acres in San Miguel County into a type-four subdivision with 25 or more parcels of at least 10 acres each. In August 1993, the Developer submitted the required application and materials to the County. In December 1993, the County proposed a one-year moratorium on subdivisions to update its regulations for public health and safety. On January 25, 1994, the Developer filed a declaratory judgment action 30 minutes before the County Commission voted to enact the moratorium (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the County, rejecting the Developer's claims.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (Developer): Argued that the moratorium could not apply to its subdivision because it filed a declaratory judgment action before the moratorium was enacted. It also claimed the moratorium was invalid due to the County's failure to file its original subdivision ordinance with the State Records Center and that the moratorium deprived it of all beneficial use of its property, constituting a regulatory taking (paras 3, 12, 14).
- Defendant-Appellee (County): Contended that the moratorium was valid and necessary to protect public health and safety. It argued that the Developer had no vested rights in the subdivision and that the filing of the declaratory judgment action did not shield the Developer from the moratorium (paras 3, 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Developer could invoke Article IV, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution to prevent the application of the moratorium (para 3).
- Whether the moratorium was invalid due to the County's failure to file its original subdivision ordinance with the State Records Center (para 12).
- Whether the moratorium constituted a temporary regulatory taking, depriving the Developer of all reasonable beneficial use of its property (para 14).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County (para 16).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Apodaca and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Article IV, Section 34: The Court held that the Developer could not invoke Article IV, Section 34 to avoid the moratorium. The provision was designed to prevent legislative changes from affecting rights in pending cases, but the Developer's lawsuit was filed strategically to preempt the moratorium. The Court emphasized that vested-rights analysis, not mere timing of a lawsuit, governs such cases. The Developer had no vested rights because it had not secured County approval or relied to its detriment on existing regulations (paras 3-11).
Filing with State Records Center: The Court rejected the argument that the moratorium was invalid due to the late filing of the original subdivision ordinance. By the time the Developer raised this issue, all relevant ordinances had been properly filed. The Court found no basis for invalidating the moratorium on this technicality (paras 12-13).
Regulatory Taking: The Court found no evidence that the moratorium deprived the Developer of all reasonable beneficial use of its property. The Developer's affidavit claiming economic idleness was deemed insufficient to create a material issue of fact. The Court upheld the trial court's summary judgment on this issue (paras 14-15).