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

• Moongate Water Company, Inc. (Moongate), a private utility company, sued the City of Las Cruces (the City) for just compensation, claiming a partial taking of its property rights. This action followed the City's annexation of three undeveloped tracts within Moongate's service area and the City's commitment to supply water to the developments there, which Moongate argued constituted a regulatory taking of its property rights under both the New Mexico and United States Constitutions (para 2).

Procedural History

• Moongate Water Co. v. City of Las Cruces, 2012-NMCA-003: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s holding that the City had taken Moongate’s property.
• Moongate Water Co. v. City of Las Cruces, 2013-NMSC-018: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, concluding Moongate did not have exclusive rights against the City’s water utility, and thus, there was no compensable taking (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Moongate): Argued that the City's actions constituted a partial and regulatory taking of its property, seeking just compensation. Contended that the Eminent Domain Code does not permit costs to be taxed against a property owner in an inverse condemnation action (paras 2-3, 11).
• Defendant-Appellee (the City): Argued that Moongate did not have exclusive rights against the City’s water utility, and thus, Moongate’s loss of a right to serve was not a compensable taking. Asserted entitlement to reasonable costs as the prevailing party in the litigation under Section 42A-1-29 and Rule 1-054(D) (paras 3-4, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Eminent Domain Code permits costs to be taxed against a property owner who exercises the constitutional or statutory right to seek just compensation for a taking of private property (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision, affirming that the City, as the prevailing party, was entitled to reasonable costs pursuant to Section 42A-1-29 and Rule 1-054(D), and awarded costs of $138,170.58 against Moongate (para 3).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The court determined that the right to recover costs exists only by virtue of statutory authority or court rule. It found that Section 42A-1-29 of the Eminent Domain Code, by directing that inverse condemnation actions are to be brought under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 1-054(D) authorizing an award of costs, clearly entitled the City to recover costs (paras 5-9).
  The court rejected Moongate's arguments that the Code's language, history, and object were inconsistent with an award of costs against a condemnee, that the Code’s specific cost provisions trump general cost provisions, and that allowing costs to be awarded to a prevailing party defendant would burden the constitutional right to seek just compensation. The court emphasized that Section 42A-1-29 governs inverse condemnation proceedings and expressly incorporates the Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 1-054(D), thus permitting the award of costs to the City as the prevailing party (paras 10-22).