Brown v. Romero
| Decision Date | 20 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 7944,7944 |
| Citation | 425 P.2d 310,1967 NMSC 57,77 N.M. 547 |
| Parties | Marie Anne BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Silviano ROMERO, Individually and as a Member of the Rio Arriba County Board of Education et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Marie Anne Brown has appealed from an order dismissing her complaint against the local school board, the state board of education, and the individual members of both boards for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted.
The action or proceeding in the district court was commenced with the filing of a pleading, entitled 'complaint,' but which alleges that the action was brought pursuant to the provisions of § 73--12--13, N.M.S.A.1953, authorizing any teacher aggrieved by a decision of the state board of education to appeal to the district court. The complaint further alleges that Mrs. Brown had a contract to teach during the school year 1961--62; that she received no notice of termination of her services prior to the end of this school term, on or about May 25, 1962. She asserts that upon such failure to give notice, her teaching contract was automatically renewed. There is a further allegation that she requested and was denied a hearing before the local or governing school board; that she appealed from that refusal to the state board of education which dismissed her appeal without a hearing. She attached exhibits to the complaint showing that the local school board denied her a hearing contending that because she did not have the required tenure, she was not entitled to a hearing.
The manner in which the proceeding was treated in the district court makes it uncertain whether the trial court considered the proceeding an original action or an appeal from the state board. This resulted from ambiguity in the pleading. As an aid to determining the nature of an action, where the relief sought is not clear, we look not only to the allegations themselves but also to the prayer. Franciscan Hotel Co. v. Albuquerque Hotel Co., 37 N.M. 456, 24 P.2d 718; Porter v. Alamocitos Land & Livestock Co., 32 N.M. 344, 256 P. 179. Compare Chavez v. Potter, 58 N.M. 662, 274 P.2d 308. Here we find that the pleading expressly states that it is brought pursuant to the statutory provision for appeals from the state board of education, and the prayer asks, in the language of the statute providing for such appeals, for a de novo trial on issues of law and fact. The boards of education challenge the jurisdiction of the court below on the ground that the pleading discloses on its face that Mrs. Brown failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
An examination of the entire complaint convinces us that it was an appeal from the state board action, and that by way of further relief it sought an award of damages in the sum of $6,650.000 for breach of claimed tenure rights, or, in the alternative, for an award of $6,650.00 because of the claimed statutory extension of the 1961--62 contract.
The pleadings are clear that there was no hearing before the local board of education. The statute, § 1, ch. 71, Laws 1955, provides the administrative procedure available to a tenure teacher who has been discharged or whose services have otherwise been terminated. Briefly stated, a teacher must (1) have a hearing before the local board on written charges, (2) appeal from an adverse decision to the state board of education, and (3) appeal from an adverse decision of the state board to the district court.
It is well settled that a teacher may not seek the enforcement of a statutory right in the courts until the administrative procedures provided by law have been fully utilized and exhausted. Sanchez v. Board of Education, 68 N.M. 440, 362 P.2d 979. That decision pointed out that '(o)ne of the obvious purposes of the statute was to provide for a full and complete administrative procedure in event a teacher with tenure was dismissed.' See, also, Stapleton v. Huff, 50 N.M. 208, 173 P.2d 612; Jones v. Board of School Directors, 55 N.M. 195, 230 P.2d 231.
Section 1(b), ch. 71, Laws 1955, authorizes an appeal to the state board only 'after such hearing by the governing board * * *.' An appeal may only be taken to the district court from an adverse decision of the state board. Section 1(c), ch. 71, Laws 1955. Absent a hearing before the governing board, neither the state board nor the district court has jurisdiction over any matter presented.
The allegation that both the local board and the state board refused a hearing makes it plain that the teacher in this instance has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Mandamus was available as a remedy to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alarcon v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ.
...the law. This being a clear legal right is enforcible by mandamus[.]" Id . ¶ 14. This holding was consistent with Brown v. Romero , 1967-NMSC-057, 77 N.M. 547, 425 P.2d 310. In Brown, a teacher sued a local school board and the state board of education for breach of tenure rights and for a ......
-
Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of N.M. v. Santa Fe Pub. Sch., 33,065.
...Quintana v. State Bd. of Educ., 1970–NMCA–074, ¶¶ 8–9, 81 N.M. 671, 472 P.2d 385 ; see also Brown v. Romero, 1967–NMSC–057, ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 547, 425 P.2d 310 (concluding that a teacher's breach of contract claim, arising out of employment contract and challenging denial of hearing, was prematu......
-
Brown v. DeLayo
...litigation has produced four decisions of the New Mexico Supreme Court and one of the state Court of Appeals. They are Brown v. Romero, 77 N. M. 547, 425 P.2d 310; State ex rel. Brown v. Hatley, 80 N.M. 24, 450 P.2d 624; Brown v. State Board of Education, N.Mex.Ct. of App., 81 N.M. 460, 468......
-
Wirtz v. State Educational Retirement Bd.
...in the absence of a complaint pleading 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal constitutional violation specifically. In Brown v. Romero, 77 N.M. 547, 550-51, 425 P.2d 310, 313 (1967), our Supreme Court held that actions for damages could not be brought in the context of an administrative appeal. In ......