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 case concerns the subdivision and sale of land in Lincoln County, New Mexico. Defendants, including a land company and its president, acquired and sold parcels of land without complying with the New Mexico Subdivision Act. The land was divided into multiple parcels, advertised, and sold without proper platting or adherence to statutory requirements. The Attorney General intervened to enforce compliance with the Act (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• Trial Court, 1989: The trial court found the defendants in violation of the New Mexico Subdivision Act and county subdivision regulations. It ordered compliance with the Act and imposed specific requirements, including filing a plat and disclosure statements, constructing infrastructure, and ceasing further sales until compliance was achieved (paras 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the trial court erred in allowing the Attorney General to intervene, that the statute of limitations barred the claims, and that the current property owners were indispensable parties. They also contended that no subdivision was created, the Act did not apply, and the trial court improperly held the individual defendant liable for the company's actions (paras 9-11, 19, 48-52).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (Attorney General): Asserted that the defendants violated the Subdivision Act by selling land without proper compliance and that injunctive relief was necessary to enforce compliance. The Attorney General argued that the statute of limitations did not apply to the state and that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence (paras 9-11, 48-50).

Legal Issues

• Did the defendants violate the New Mexico Subdivision Act by selling land without compliance with statutory requirements?
• Was the Attorney General authorized to intervene and seek injunctive relief?
• Were the current property owners indispensable parties to the case?
• Did the statute of limitations bar the Attorney General's claims?
• Was the trial court's order proper under the statutory scheme?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that the defendants violated the Subdivision Act but reversed and remanded the order for revision to align with statutory requirements (paras 1, 54).

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Bivins and Hartz JJ. concurring):

• Violation of the Subdivision Act: The court found substantial evidence that the defendants created a subdivision by selling multiple parcels of land under a predetermined plan without complying with the Act. Evidence included maps, advertisements, and testimony indicating intent to divide and sell the land (paras 12-18).
• Attorney General's Authority: The Attorney General was authorized to intervene and seek injunctive relief under the Act. The statute of limitations did not bar the claims because it does not apply to the state in this context (paras 9-11, 48-50).
• Indispensable Parties: The current property owners were not indispensable parties because the defendants were responsible for preparing and submitting the required plat (para 52).
• Propriety of the Order: The trial court's order exceeded the scope of injunctive relief authorized under the Act by imposing requirements applicable to larger subdivisions. The appellate court directed the trial court to revise the order to require only those actions necessary for the county to consider and act on a proposed plat (paras 34-44).
• Statutory Interpretation: The court applied the 1979 amendments to the Subdivision Act retrospectively, as they were procedural and did not alter substantive rights (paras 31-33).

The appellate court concluded that while the defendants violated the Act, the trial court's order required modification to comply with the statutory framework (paras 54).