AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Artesia resolved to condemn the property of Jacinto Lopez, located at 911 West Dallas, Artesia, New Mexico, as a public menace. Lopez had purchased the property over twenty years ago, lived and practiced medicine there before moving to California in 1985 or 1986, leaving the building vacant. The City notified Lopez of the contemplated condemnation in 2010, citing the property's condition as a menace to public health and safety. After a hearing where Lopez objected, the City Council enforced the resolution. Lopez sought de novo review in district court, which affirmed the condemnation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Lopez): Argued that the ordinance exceeded the City's authority, was applied retroactively, the district court's ruling was not supported by substantial evidence, and his request for a jury trial was improperly denied.
• Defendants-Appellees (Municipal Council and Mayor of the City of Artesia): Contended that the ordinance did not exceed the City's authority, the district court conducted a de novo trial on the merits, and Lopez failed to preserve his argument regarding the standard of review.

Legal Issues

• Whether Ordinance 5-5-4 exceeds the authority granted to the City by NMSA 1978, Section 3-18-5.
• Whether the ordinance was improperly applied retroactively.
• Whether the district court’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the plaintiff's request for a jury trial was improperly denied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals found that Ordinance 5-5-4 exceeded the municipality’s authority by imposing a clearly erroneous standard of review on the district court and remanded for the district court to enter its findings of facts and render judgment based on those findings.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (Fry and Vanzi, JJ., concurring):
  The Court agreed with Lopez that Ordinance 5-5-4 exceeded the City's authority by imposing a clearly erroneous standard of review, conflicting with the de novo review required by Section 3-18-5. The district court conducted a de novo trial but applied the incorrect standard, necessitating remand for proper findings and judgment based on a de novo review.
  On substantial evidence, the Court found that the district court correctly conducted a de novo trial and that evidence supported the conclusion that Lopez’s property was dilapidated. However, the written judgment applied a clearly erroneous standard, prompting remand for findings and judgment under the correct standard.
  Regarding retroactivity, the Court found no error, stating the City did not apply the ordinance retroactively as it addressed a continuing condition.
  On the right to a jury trial, the Court found no error, noting that the type of proceeding did not exist at the time the New Mexico Constitution was adopted, and Lopez did not demonstrate an entitlement to a jury trial in this context.