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

• Petitioners, Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc., as trustee of Murtagh Nevada Trust, and Murtagh Nevada, LLC, held excess impact fee credits from the City of Albuquerque, which they could sell or use to offset impact fees on new developments. Following the City's enactment of a new ordinance in 2012, which reduced impact fee rates and altered the demand for such credits, Premier alleged a decrease in the value of their credits, constituting a taking of private property without just compensation and various contract claims against the City (paras 1-8).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court dismissed Premier's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the 2012 Ordinance constituted an unlawful taking under the New Mexico Takings Clause and brought forward contract claims based on promissory estoppel, illusory promise, and a claim for a refund of the excess credits (para 9).
• Respondents-Appellees: Moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Premier failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2012 Ordinance constitutes an unlawful taking under the New Mexico Takings Clause.
• Whether the contract claims based on promissory estoppel, illusory promise, and a claim for a refund of the excess credits are viable.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Premier's takings and illusory promise claims (para 25, 32).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Attrep, held that Premier failed to allege a protected property right in static market conditions for its credits, which is a prerequisite for a takings claim. The court found that neither the Act nor the 2005 Ordinance conferred any right to excess credit holders to sell credits at the rates set out in the 2005 impact fee schedules. Furthermore, the court concluded that Premier's takings claim falters under New Mexico regulatory takings test, as Premier failed to plead a loss of all or substantially all beneficial use of its excess credits. Regarding the illusory promise claim, the court found that Premier did not allege in its amended complaint that it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contracts between the City and the Developers, nor did it provide sufficient evidence to support such a claim. The court also noted that the agreements attached to the amended complaint did not reference the rates of impact fees or any promise made by the City regarding those rates (paras 14-32).