Title: Application of Angel Fire Corp.

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

634 P.2d 202 (1981) 96 N.M. 65 In the Matter of the Application of ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION for a Supplemental Well, ANGEL FIRE CORPORATION, Applicant-Appellant, v. C.S. CATTLE COMPANY, Springer Ditch Company and The City of Springer, Protestants-Appellees, v. S.E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Party in Interest-Appellant. No. 13581. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 22, 1981. Montgomery & Andrews, John B. Draper, Santa Fe, for applicant-appellant. Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., G. Emlen Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant, State Engineer. Paul A. Kastler, Raton, for protestants-appellees. PAYNE, Justice. This appeal requires a determination of the proper procedure for appeal to the district *203 courts from actions taken by the State Engineer. § 72-7-1, N.M.S.A. 1978. The relevant events transpired as follows: Angel Fire appeals the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss. Section 72-12-10, N.M.S.A. 1978, states that "[t]he decision of the state engineer shall be final in all cases unless appeal be taken to the district court within thirty days after his decision as provided by § 72-7-1 N.M.S.A. 1978." Section 72-7-1, N.M.S.A. 1978, states: The judiciary determines rules of procedure for cases within the judicial system, Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976) cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906, 98 S. Ct. 2237, 56 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1978); State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 60 P.2d 646 (1936), pursuant to its authority under the separation of powers doctrine N.M. Const., Art. III, § 1. However, the statute here establishes an administrative procedure for taking a case or controversy out of the administrative framework into the judicial system for review. Jurisdiction of the matters in dispute does not lie in the courts until the statutorily required administrative procedures are fully complied with. The courts have no authority to alter the statutory scheme, cumbersome as it may be. Accordingly, we reverse. The statutory requirements are clear. "[A]ny decision, act or refusal to act of the state engineer" may be appealed. § 72-7-1. Thus, there is no requirement of finality. In the posture of the present case, C.S. is therefore required to appeal separately from the September 22 order and the *204 October 28 modification order if it contests each. The statute requires service on all interested parties within thirty days. Thus, service on counsel will not suffice if service is not also made on the actual parties to the litigation. C.S.'s attempted appeal fails since no service was made upon Angel Fire until after the thirty-day period expired. The remaining provisions are not before this Court. The decision of the district court is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal. BE IT SO ORDERED. SOSA, Senior Justice, and RIORDAN, J., concur.