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 Petitioners sought to compel the Respondents, including the Board of Trustees of the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque and its Planning and Zoning Administrator, to enforce zoning ordinances. They alleged that a nearby property was being used for public horse shows and stabling more than the allowable eleven horses, in violation of the zoning code. The Petitioners also sought damages for the loss of enjoyment of their property (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The court granted the Petitioners' motion for partial summary judgment, issued a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring enforcement of the zoning ordinance, and reserved the issue of damages for further hearing (paras 3-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Respondents): Argued that the district court's issuance of the writ of mandamus constituted a final judgment and was therefore appealable, despite the unresolved issue of damages. They also contended that the rule of finality should be interpreted practically, not technically, and that their strong case on the merits justified immediate appellate review (paras 3, 8, 11).
- Appellees (Petitioners): Filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the district court's order was not a final judgment because the issue of damages remained unresolved (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus constitutes a final order for purposes of appeal when the issue of damages remains unresolved (para 1).
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order, and the case was remanded to the district court (para 14).
Reasons
Per Wechsler CJ (Bustamante and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The court held that the district court's order granting the writ of mandamus was not a final judgment because the issue of damages had not been resolved. Under New Mexico law, an order is not final for purposes of appeal if it leaves any substantive issues, such as damages, outstanding (paras 6-7). The court emphasized the policy against piecemeal appeals and noted that the mandamus statutes require final judgments in such proceedings to be treated like other civil cases (paras 8, 12). The court rejected the Appellants' argument that the writ of mandamus was independently appealable, finding that the statutory language and legislative intent supported the requirement of finality (paras 9-10). The court also dismissed the argument that partial summary judgments could constitute final judgments, clarifying that such judgments are only final when they dispose of the case entirely (para 13).