2019 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 7 - Taxation
Article 38 - Administration and Enforcement of Property Taxes
Section 7-38-27 - Protest hearings; verbatim record; action by county valuation protests board; time limitations.

A. Except for the rules relating to discovery, the technical rules of evidence and the Rules Civil Procedure for the District Courts do not apply at protest hearings before a county valuation protests board, but the hearing shall be conducted so that an ample opportunity is provided for the presentation of complaints and defenses. All testimony shall be taken under oath. A verbatim record of the hearing shall be made but need not be transcribed unless required for appeal purposes.

B. Final action taken by the board on a petition shall be by written order signed by the chairman or a member of the board designated by the chairman. The order shall be made within thirty days after the date of the hearing, but this time limitation may be extended by agreement of the board and the protestant. A copy of the order shall be sent immediately by certified mail to the property owner. A copy of the order shall also be sent to the director and the county assessor.

C. All protests shall be decided within one hundred eighty days of the date the protest is filed. The protest shall be denied if the property owner or his authorized representative fails, without reasonable justification, to appear at the hearing.

D. The board's order shall be dated, state the changes to be made in the valuation records, if any, and direct the county assessor to take appropriate action. The division shall make any changes in its valuation records required by the order.

E. Changes in the valuation records shall clearly indicate that the prior entry has been superseded by an order of the board.

F. The assessor shall maintain a file of all orders made by the county valuation protests board. The file shall be open for public inspection.

G. If an order of a county valuation protests board is appealed under Section 7-38-28 NMSA 1978, the director shall immediately notify the appropriate county assessor of the appeal. Notations shall be made in the valuation records of the assessor and the division indicating the pendency of the appeal.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-27, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 67; 1982, ch. 28, § 14.

Cross references. — For rules relating to discovery, see Rule 1-026 NMRA et seq.

Procedural due process denied when board excluded evidence. — By unlawfully excluding evidence and denying the right to discovery, the county valuation protests boards curtailed taxpayers' right to be heard and to present any defense, and, in so doing, they deprived appellants of their constitutionally guaranteed right to procedural due process. Taxpayers are entitled to new hearings, at which evidence of valuation of comparable properties or other properties of the same class may be admissible in evidence and are to be weighed by the boards in arriving at their decisions. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Refusal to allow witnesses. — A notion of fairness is included within the concept of procedural due process, and accordingly in a hearing before an administrative agency, the agency must examine both sides of the controversy taking and weighing the evidence that is offered and finding facts based on a consideration of the evidence, in order to fairly protect the interests and rights of all who are involved; a refusal to allow witnesses to be called is a denial of procedural due process. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Denial of right to take depositions. — To deny the taxpayer the right to take depositions at county valuation protests board hearings denies him the right to a fair hearing. Such denial constitutes a denial of due process under U.S. Const., amend. XIV. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Arbitrary for board to reach decision without considering all evidence. — The state has not given administrative boards the authority to catalogue which evidence shall be considered in deciding a protest, and when the administrative board has reached a decision and promulgated an order without considering all the evidence presented at the hearing, its decision and order is arbitrary and should be reversed. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Full opportunity to be heard required. — Administrative proceedings must conform to fundamental principles of justice and the requirements of due process of law; a litigant must be given a full opportunity to be heard with all rights related thereto. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Rulings void if not in accord with statute. — Rulings by an administrative agency not in accord with the basic statutory requirements relating to the agency will render its decision void. La Jara Land Developers, Inc. v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 1982-NMCA-006, 97 N.M. 318, 639 P.2d 605.

Administrative law rules of evidence govern admissions. — While neither the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure nor the rules provided by the Administrative Procedures Act apply, there must be some rules to govern admission of evidence in proceedings before the county valuation protests boards, and these rules must be found in the body of administrative law that has grown up in the courts. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Wide latitude allowed in admission of evidence. — The rationale for stating that the technical rules of evidence do not apply at protest hearings before a county valuation protests board is to allow wide latitude in the admission of evidence before an administrative board. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Administrative Procedures Act (Sections 12-8-1 to 12-8-25 NMSA 1978) demonstrates that depositions are permissible under administrative law, to assist the agency and other parties in obtaining a fair hearing. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Taxpayer's evidence should be admitted to prove value. — The protests board could not rely exclusively on the county assessor's valuation of property even though according to former 72-2-3, 1953 Comp., the assessment must be at "full actual value," and neither could it rely on comparable sales or sales of comparable lands where none have occurred; accordingly, the board should have allowed the admission of the only available relevant evidence which the taxpayer had. In situations where cash market value could not be determined, earning capacity, cost of reproduction and original cost less depreciation furnished relevant considerations for determining "value." In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142.

Rules of weight, etc., not necessarily limited. — Although the technical rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure do not apply at protest hearings before a county valuation protests board, the rules relating to weight, applicability or materiality of evidence are not thus limited. San Pedro S. Group v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1976-NMCA-116, 89 N.M. 784, 558 P.2d 53.

Rules of weight, etc., not necessarily limited. — The rules relating to weight, applicability or materiality of evidence are not limited by the provisions of this section. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Requirement for findings. — By inadvertence, the legislature omitted the requirement of a "decision" by the board under this section. However, the practical reasons for requiring administrative findings are so powerful that the requirement has been imposed with remarkable uniformity by virtually all federal and state courts, irrespective of a statutory requirement. First Nat'l Bank v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1977-NMCA-005, 90 N.M. 110, 560 P.2d 174 (decided under prior law).

Pronouncement not final order subject to review on appeal. — Statements of a judge as to reasons for the judgment, made before the judgment is entered, which statements are not embodied therein, cannot be considered as a part of the judgment but are merely evidence of what the court had decided to do, a decision that the trial court can change at any time before the entry of a final judgment and an order of a protest board is analogous to the judgment of a court. Therefore, a pronouncement of a county protests board did not constitute its duly entered final order and was not subject to review on appeal of its final order. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Board must show good cause for delay in hearing. — When taxpayers show that the statutory time constraints have not been complied with and the taxpayer and board have not agreed to extend the time, the burden shifts to the board to establish good cause for the delay. Protest of Plaza Del Sol Ltd. P'ship v. Assessor for Cnty. of Bernalillo, 1986-NMCA-022, 104 N.M. 154, 717 P.2d 1123.

Settlement negotiations do not toll time requirements. — Mere settlement negotiations, without more, are insufficient as a matter of law to toll the statutory time requirements. Protest of Plaza Del Sol Ltd. P'ship v. Assessor for Cnty. of Bernalillo, 1986-NMCA-022, 104 N.M. 154, 717 P.2d 1123.

Orders invalid when board without quorum. — When the protests board, consisting of three members, instead of the six required by the prior version of Section 7-38-25 NMSA 1978, heard the protests and entered the orders, a quorum was not present, and the orders of the board were invalid. San Pedro S. Group v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1976-NMCA-116, 89 N.M. 784, 558 P.2d 53.

Protests board without authority to reject agreement between assessor and landowner. — A county valuation protests board does not have authority to reject an agreement between an assessor and a landowner concerning the land value. In re Horn, 1980-NMCA-145, 95 N.M. 38, 618 P.2d 382.

Decisions have force and effect of judgments. — The decisions rendered by an officer or a board legally constituted and empowered to settle the question submitted to it, when acting judicially, have the force and effect of a judgment. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.