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 Rio Rancho Public School District sought to condemn certain properties, including land owned by a trust, to facilitate public school development. The School District offered $13,900 as compensation for the trust's property, but the trust challenged the adequacy of this amount. After a bench trial, the district court awarded $22,500 as just compensation. The trust accepted full payment of the judgment, including interest, before filing an appeal (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 28, 1995: The School District filed a petition to condemn the property and obtained a preliminary order of entry after depositing $397,100 with the court clerk (para 2).
- District Court, Post-Trial: The court awarded the trust $22,500 as just compensation for the property, an increase from the initial $13,900 offer (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Trustee): Argued that accepting payment of the judgment did not waive the right to appeal, citing statutory provisions and case law from other jurisdictions. The trustee also contended that the School District's motion for a supersedeas bond barred it from invoking waiver and that the statute governing condemnation allowed appeals even after accepting payment (paras 5-8).
- Respondent (School District): Asserted that the trustee waived the right to appeal by accepting full payment of the judgment, relying on the general rule that acceptance of judgment benefits precludes appeal. The School District also argued that the trustee failed to provide security to preserve the right to appeal (paras 5-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the trustee waive the right to appeal by accepting full payment of the judgment?
- Does the statutory framework governing condemnation in New Mexico allow a landowner to appeal after accepting payment of the judgment?
Disposition
- The trustee's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of waiver.
- The School District's cross-appeal was affirmed due to the lack of opposition (paras 4, 16-17).
Reasons
Per Hartz CJ (Bosson and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The court held that the general rule is that a party waives the right to appeal by accepting the benefits of a judgment. While the statutory framework allows landowners to accept advance deposits without waiving their right to appeal, this exception does not extend to post-judgment payments. The trustee's acceptance of the additional $8,600 awarded by the court constituted a waiver of the right to appeal (paras 5-10).
The court rejected the trustee's reliance on out-of-state case law, noting that the cited cases were either factually distinguishable or based on statutory provisions materially different from New Mexico law. The court also dismissed procedural arguments raised by the trustee, finding that the record sufficiently established full payment and that the School District properly raised the waiver issue on appeal (paras 11-15).
Per Bosson J. (concurring):
Judge Bosson concurred with the majority but expressed concern over the statutory framework, which he found counter-intuitive and unfair to landowners. He urged legislative reform to allow landowners to accept full payment of judgments without jeopardizing their right to appeal, emphasizing the imbalance between the immediate benefits received by condemning authorities and the delayed compensation for landowners (paras 18-21).