Tax & Rev Dept v. Noriega
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO 8 TAXATION AND REVENUE 9 DEPARTMENT, 10 Petitioner-Appellee 11 v. NO. 31,014 12 CHARLES NORIEGA, d/b/a 13 BUMPER TO BUMPER 14 AUTO REPAIR, 15 Respondent-Appellant. 16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 17 Charles C. Currier, District Judge 18 N.M. Taxation and Revenue Department 19 Lewis J. Terr, Special Assistant Attorney General 20 Santa Fe, NM 21 for Appellee 22 Santiago E. Juarez 23 Santa Cruz, NM 24 for Appellant 25 26 VIGIL, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Appellant Charles Noriega, d/b/a Bumper to Bumper Auto Repair, appeals the 2 district court s order of contempt and order appointing receiver to abate nuisance. 3 This Court filed a notice of proposed summary disposition on March 7, 2011, 4 proposing to affirm. Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition on March 30, 2011, 5 which we have given due consideration. We affirm the district court. 6 Appellant asserts that there was insufficient evidence that he operated an auto 7 recycling business, as that term is defined by statute. He agrees that the facts set forth 8 in this Court s notice of proposed summary disposition are undisputed. [MIO 1] The 9 evidence before the district court established that Appellant was having entire vehicles 10 crushed on his property, that he offered entire crushed vehicles for sale to recycling 11 entities, and that he did not have an auto recycler license. [CN 5-6] Appellant argues 12 that NMSA 1978, Section 66-4-1.1(A) (2005) does not cover this conduct. [MIO 2-3] 13 We conclude that the crushed vehicles in Appellant s possession satisfied the 14 definition of wrecked, dismantled or partially wrecked or dismantled vehicles, as 15 used in the statute, and that selling them constituted selling used vehicle parts or 16 vehicle scrap material as used in the statute. 17 For the reasons discussed in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we 18 conclude that the district court correctly ruled that a preponderance of the evidence 19 showed that Appellant operated an auto recycling business without a license. We also 2 1 conclude that this conduct violated court orders in effect since 2004, and that the 2 district court did not abuse its discretion when it held Appellant in contempt and 3 appointed a receiver to abate the nuisance. 4 For these reasons, we affirm the district court. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 _______________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9 _________________________________ 10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 11 _________________________________ 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
