Landavazo v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 20 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 18227,18227
• Citation: 111 N.M. 137,1990 NMSC 114,802 P.2d 1283
• Parties: Fred LANDAVAZO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose SANCHEZ, Epifania Sanchez, Celso Sanchez, Lillie Chacon, E.B. Sanchez, and the County of Valencia, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 1283

802 P.2d 1283

111 N.M. 137

Fred LANDAVAZO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Jose SANCHEZ, Epifania Sanchez, Celso Sanchez, Lillie Chacon, E.B. Sanchez, and the County of ValenciaDefendants-Appellants.

No. 18227.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 20, 1990.

[111 NM 137] Pedro G. Rael, Los Lunas, for defendants-appellants Jose Sanchez and Lillie Chacon.

Esquibel, Sanchez & Griego, Thomas Esquibel and Michael R. Griego, Los Lunas, for defendant-appellant County of Valencia.

Williams, Conroy & Sims, Anthony J. Williams, Belen, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

BACA, Justice.

On the court's own motion, the opinion filed December 5, 1990, is hereby withdrawn and the opinion filed this date is substituted therefor.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff-appellee Landavazo damages in a suit for ejectment and inverse condemnation.The issues revolve around the Juan P. Sanchez Road, which is maintained by the County of Valencia and borders Landavazo's property.This road is also necessary for access to defendants-appellants Sanchezes' property.

Landavazo claims that in 1983, while in the process of maintaining the roadway, the county widened it, and that this constituted a taking of Landavazo's bordering property.In 1985, Landavazo filed suit against the Sanchezes and the county in ejectment and inverse condemnation.

Landavazo introduced evidence in the form of testimony of several witnesses, a survey made after the county widened the road, and a comparison aerial photo taken of the property in 1972 before the widening.This evidence demonstrated a significant change in the boundaries and supported the court's finding that a taking had indeed occurred.The trial court found for Landavazo, determining that evidence existed to hold that the widening was an unlawful taking of his property without compensation.Landavazo was awarded $5,000.00 plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees.The decision of a majority of the court is to affirm on all issues.Part IV of this opinion expresses a dissenting view with regard to attorney's fees; and Justice Montgomery's separate opinion contains the majority view on that issue.

The appellants, County of Valencia and the Sanchezes, raise several points on appeal.Many can be answered in terms of substantial evidence.We will address those issues jointly.The remaining issues are: 1) whether the plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; 2) whether the court erred in refusing to grant defendants' default motion on the day of the trial; and 3) whether the award of costs and attorney's fees was consistent with NMSA 1978, Section 42A-1-25(Repl. Pamp.1981).

I.SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The county claims reversible error in that the evidence failed to establish a precise boundary, the precise value of the property in question, and whether maintenance of the Juan P. Sanchez Road constituted a taking.Appellants Sanchezes on the other hand claim that the trial court committed error by refusing to accept the county's determination that the road was twenty-eight feet wide and by not following the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District maps to establish boundary lines.These are all questions of substantial evidence.

It is not this court's task to reweigh evidence.If substantial evidence supports a trial court's conclusion it will not be disturbed on appeal.Elephant Butte Resort Marina, Inc. v. Wooldridge, 102 N.M. 286, 291, 694 P.2d 1351, 1356(1985).Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.Register v. Roberson Constr. Co., 106 N.M. 243, 741 P.2d 1364(1987);Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Co., 78 N.M. 86, 428 P.2d 625(1967).Evidence is substantial even if it barely tips the scales in favor of the party bearing the burden of proof.Lumpkins v. McPhee, 59 N.M. 442, 453, 286 P.2d 299, 310(1955).Landavazo presented a survey prepared by a professional surveyor (Carlton survey) that, when compared with an aerial photo of the property in 1972 taken before the widening, showed a change in boundaries.This, together with testimonial and other evidence, is sufficient to tip the scales in Landavazo's favor.This court views the evidence in the light most favorable to support the findings of the trial court.Lujan v. Pendaries Properties, Inc., 96 N.M. 771, 774, 635 P.2d 580, 583(1981);Tapia, 78 N.M. at 89, 428 P.2d at 628.This is all we need determine for these boundary issues: "On appeal, the scope of review is limited to examining the record only to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the district court's ruling."Brannock v. Brannock, 104 N.M. 385, 387, 722 P.2d 636, 638(1986).

In determining the value of the property taken, the court computed the actual acreage taken by adding the distance from point to point along the roadway as established by the Carlton survey and multiplying the resulting sum by thirteen feet.The thirteen feet represented the difference between fifteen feet, the average width of the roadway prior to the taking, and twenty-eight feet, the average width of the roadway after the taking.The court then multiplied the resulting square footage of 19,942 square feet by the stipulated value of the land at $0.28 per square foot.The court then rounded the figure down to $5,000.No evidence of either diminution or enhancement of the remaining land was offered.Based upon the evidence the court necessarily concluded that the value of the remaining property was the same before and after the taking.This constituted substantial evidence for the damages found by the court.

II.DID THE COMPLAINT FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED?

The county claims that because Landavazo cited a repealed statute in his complaint, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.This is an ill-founded assertion.Landavazo set out, with some specificity, his claim giving notice to the county, enabling it to defend.Nothing more is required.The purpose of pleadings is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits, not to decide the outcome of the entire proceeding on a clumsily drafted complaint.Hambaugh v. Peoples, 75 N.M. 144, 401 P.2d 777(1965).A proper decision on the merits is always preferred over a dismissal on the pleadings.The words "inverse condemnation" were used in the pleading.Further, language in the pleading was sufficient to alert the county that indeed inverse condemnation was intended even though the wrong statute was cited.Substantial justice was accomplished by accepting the complaint as sufficient.Morrison v. Wyrsch, 93 N.M. 556, 603 P.2d 295(1979).Finally, a specific citation to a statute is unnecessary in a complaint.It is sufficient for a party to refer to the statute"in some general term with convenient certainty."SCRA 1986, 1-009(H).Landavazo was sufficiently specific in his complaint and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.

III.MOTION FOR DEFAULT

The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the Sanchezes' motion for default.Landavazo had failed to respond to their counterclaim at the time of trial.The Sanchezes did not comply with SCRA 1986, 1-055, which requires an affidavit, a written application for default, and service upon the defaulting party no less than three days before the hearing.Here, when the court was confronted with a motion for default on the day of trial, it properly denied the motion and tried the matter on its merits.Judgments by default are not favored in New Mexico.Rodriguez v. Conant, 105 N.M. 746, 737 P.2d 527(1987).Whether a default should be granted lies within the discretion of the trial court.Hubbard v. Howell, 94 N.M. 36, 607 P.2d 123(1980);seeSCRA 1986, 1-055.The trial court was well within the bounds of its discretion in denying a default judgment.

IV.ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

With regard to attorney's fees this opinion expresses a dissenting view.The trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under NMSA 1978, Section 42A-1-25(Repl. Pamp.1981).Attorney's fees are provided in condemnation proceedings under this statute in three instances: 1) when the condemnor has abandoned condemnation; 2) when the condemnation proceedings have been dismissed; or 3) when there is a final determination that the condemnor does not have the right to take the property.None of the three instances is applicable in this case.

Landavazo argues that his original proceeding before the county commission seeking redress for the taking constituted a "condemnation proceeding."He contends that the county went no further than to declare the width of the road--finding no taking had occurred--and invited him to sue, and these actions constituted an abandonment of the condemnation proceeding.The above actions of the county commission were not a condemnation proceeding; hence there was no abandonment.There was no later abandonment or dismissal of condemnation proceedings--the county vigorously pursued this matter when sued by Landavazo in inverse condemnation.The only other possible theory to award Landavazo attorney's fees under this statute is under Subsection (3).Landavazo did indeed "win" below and was awarded money damages for the county's taking of his property.There was, however, no determination that the county did not have the right to take the property sought, but merely that it must pay for it.

Section 42A-1-25(A)(3) provides for an award of litigation expenses to a condemnee when "there is a final determination that the condemnor does not have a right to take the property sought to be acquired in the condemnation proceeding."(Emphasis added.)

The trial court in this case necessarily determined that the county had the right to take the property when it required the county to pay the Sanchezes for the land.Had it determined the county had no right to take the property, it would neither have...