1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: A ug us t 17, 201 7 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5148 5 EL CASTI LLO RETI REMENT 6 RES IDEN CES , 7 Pe tit ion er -R es pond en t, 8 v
. 9 DOMI NGO MARTI NEZ , ASSESS OR, 10 SANTA FE COUNTY, 11 Respondent -Petitioner. 12 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 13 Ba rb ar a J. V igi l, D ist ri ctJu dg e
14 Bridget Jacober 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 for Pe tition er
17 Jo ne s, Sn ead , W ert he im & Cl iff or d, P.A. 18 Carol A . C lifford 19 Je rr y T odd W er

the im 20 San ta Fe, NM 21 fo r Re spon de nt1 Betzer , R oy

bal & E isenberg, P. C. 2 Gary D. Eisenberg 3 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 4 for A m icus Curiae 5 N ewMe xic o H ea lthCare A sso ci at ion1 OPIN ION

2 DA NIEL S, Justice. 3 { 1} Article VIII, Section 1(A) of t he Ne w Mexico Constitu tion sets forth a general 4 ma n d a t e t h a t a l l p r o p e rt y o f t h e s a me c l a s s mu s tb e t a x e di n a n “e qu a l a n du n i f o rm” 5 m an ne r, w hil e Se ct ion3 exe m pts fr om ta xa tio n pr ope rty

that i s, am ong oth er

e xe m pt 6 categories, “ used for .
. . charitable purposes.” I n 200 8, the N ewMexico L egislature 7 cr ea te d a n e w t a x e x e m p t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u i n g c a r e c o m m u n i t y d e f i n e d u n de r the 8 Co nti nui ng C ar e A ct , N MS A 197 8, §§ 2 4- 17- 1 to - 18 (1 98 5, as am en de d th ro ugh 9 2010 ), that “ donate s or r en de rs gr at

uit ousl y aportio n of its se rv ic es or f ac ili tie s” a nd 10 “ uses all funds rem aining after pay m ent of its
. . . expenses of operation . .
. to further 11 its c hari ta

ble pur pose , inc lud ing the m ai nte na nc e, im pr ove m en t or

e xpansion o f its 12 fa ci lit ie s, ” am ong oth er qua lif ic at ion s. N MS A 1978 , § 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) ( 2008 ); see 13 § 24-17-3(B)-(C) (defining “ com m unity ” and “ continu ing care”)
. 14 { 2} Re spon de nt E l C as til lo R et ir em en t R es ide nc es is a se lf -s ust ai nin g r et ir em en t 15 an d c ont inu ing c ar e co m m uni ty , f unde d e nti re ly

by adm iss iona nd m onthly f ee s pa id 16 byr e si de nt s w ho h a ve m e tE l C a st i l l o’ s r e qu i r e m e nt s f or s uf f i c i e nt f i nancial 17 resources, includin g a m inim um net worth, and have satisfied specific health criter ia. 18 It does not a cc ep t r es ide nts w ho are Me dic ar e- de pe nde nt, Me dic ai d- de pe nde nt, or 19 ch ar ity -d ep en de nt o r an y r es ide nts w ho c an not affo rd to buy the ir w ay int o th e2

1 com m unity . I t neither donates any sig ni f i c a nt services or property

to charitable causes 2 no r us es it s p ro pe rty pri m ari ly an d subs ta nt ia ll y fo r a ch ari tabl e p ur po se . Whi le we 3 ag re e w iththe Co urt of App eal s th at E l C as til lo d oe s no t us e its pr ope rty f or 4 ch ar ita ble pur pose s and i s th er ef

or e not e xe m pt f ro m the c onst itu tio na l r equir em en t 5 of e qua l t ax at ion , w e w ri te to cl ari fy that S ec tio n 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) m ust be r ea d in 6 ha rm on y

wit h c on tro ll in g c on st it ut io na l re qu ire m en ts . Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th atEl 7 Ca sti llo is not

e nti tle d to property -t ax e xe m pti ons unde r ei the r Se ct ion7- 36- 8 7( B)(1 )(d ) orArti cl e VIII, S e c t i o n 3 o f th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n b ecau se El 9 Ca sti llo doe s no t us e its pr ope rty pr im ar ily f or sub stanti al pub lic be ne fi t f urthe ri ng 10 ch ar ita

ble pur pose s. 11 I. BACKGRO UND 12 { 3} El C astillo Retirem ent Residences, located in Santa Fe County , provides 13 graduated levels of care to its acce pted residents, all of whom m ust pay an entry fee 14 upona dm iss iona nd m onthly f ee s th ereaft er in r et

ur n f or li vin g qu ar

te rs , the use of 15 share d f

ac ili tie s, a cc es s to c oor din at ed soc ia l and r ec re ation al a ct ivi tie s, a nd the 16 assurance that El Castillo w ill provide any level of car e that acc epted residents m ay 17 need as they

age. 18 { 4} E l C as til lo i s f unde d pr im ar ily

by r es ide nt f

ee s c al cu la te d a t the ti m e of3

1 adm iss iona nd b as ed

on e ac h r es ide nt’ s li fe ex pect an cy a nd p ro j ec te d le ve l of 2 re qui re d c ar e. F ee s are c al cu la te d to c ove r al l of the ope ratin g c ost s of the f ac ili ty a nd 3 to p ro vid e ad dit ion al re se rv es tha t ca n be draw n on to m ak e up d ef ic its
. I t i s po ssi ble 4 that particular re sidents will outlive their predicted life span s o r re quire m ore 5 ex pe nsi ve m ed ic al c ar e than an tic ipa te d so tha t the fe es the y pa y w oul d not be e noug h 6 to c ov e r t he e nt i r e c os t of t he i r l i f e t i m e c a r e . O t he r r e si de nt s m a y l i ve f e w er y ears 7 than expected, and the entry fee and m onth ly fees they pay to El Ca stillo will exce ed 8 the total cost of their lifetim e car e. 9 { 5} To m inim ize the fa ci l i t y’ s exposu re to financial r isk from this flat-fee 10 arrangem ent, prosp ectiv e re sidents m ust m eet phy sical, m ental, a nd financial 11 re qui re m en ts t o be a cc ep te d fo r adm iss ion
. E l C as til lo d oe s no t a cc ep t a ppl ic an ts who 12 depend so lely

on M ed icare or Medicaid, indiv iduals whose net worth is less than 13 $300 , 000 ind ep en de nt o f soc ia l se curi ty be ne fi ts, or

tho se w hose he al th i ssu es li ke ly 14 will re quire a high level of care
. 15 { 6} El C astillo’s property wa s valued at $9 , 86 0,000 for 2009 p roperty -tax purposes 16 by t he pe tit ion er , the S an taF e Co unty A sse sso r. A ft er

r ec ei vin g th e not ic e of 1 7 v a l u a t i o n , E l C a s t i l l o f i l e d a c l a i m f

o r e x e m p t i o n o f p r o p e rt y u s e d f

o r c ha ri table 18 pur pose s un de r A rt ic le V II I, Se ct ion 3 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n and S ec tio n4

1 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) of

the N ewMe xic o P ro pe rty T ax Co de
. T he A sses so r denie d th e 2 cl ai m be ca use “ E l C as tillo’ s do na tio n of se rv ic es or

f ac ili tie s is m ini m al
. ” T he 3 A sse sso r ac know le dge d th at the L eg isl at

ur e did not te xtual ly se t f orth a m ini m um 4 le ve l of

c hari ta ble don at ionin Se ct ion7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) but co nc lud ed tha t “be ca use 5 the c onst itu tio na l gr an t of ex em pti on re qui re s pr im ar

y an d subs tanti al c ha ri ta

ble use 6 of th e p ro pe rty, so m

us t t he st atut e.” 7 { 7} E l C as til lo p ro te ste d th e A sse sso r’s de ni al to the S an taF e Co unty V al ua tio n 8 Pr otest s B oa rd . The Bo ardup he ld th e Ass es so r’s de ni al of t he pro pe rty -t axe xe m pti on 9 af te r fi ndi ng tha t E l C as til lo h ad not “ donate [d ] or re nde r[ ed ] gr at uit ousl y aportio n 10 of its services or fa cilities” as the term s of Section 7-36-7(B)(1)( d) require. The B oard 11 did not pur port to a ddr es s th e co nst itu tio na l i ssu e se pa rate ly be ca use E l C as til lo d id 12 not argue for an exem ption under Article VIII, Section 3 separate f rom the statutory 13 gr ound s, a nd the part ie s a gr ee d th at the Bo ar d di d no t have j ur isd ic tio n to ad dr es s th e 14 “ co ns ti tu ti on al is su e wit h re ga rdto th e st atut e it se lf.” 15 { 8} E l C as til lo a

ppe al ed the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt purs ua nt t o th e 16 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppe llate j ur isd ic tio n. E l C as til lo as ke d the dis tr ic t co urt to r ev ie wthe 17 Board’ s decision whi c h de ni e d the e xe m ption on statuto ry

grounds . E l Castillo argued 18 that the Board’ s decision “ wa s not supported bysubst antial evidence and wa s reac hed5

1 in an arbitrary

and capricious m anner. ” A dditi onally , E l Castillo asked the dis trict 2 co urt t o e xe rc ise it s or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n and d ec ide w he the r E l C as til lo w as e xe m pt 3 from property

valuation u nder Ar

ticle V III , S ection 3 of the NewMexico 4 Co nst itu tio n. 5 { 9} El C astillo argued that by enacting S ection 7-36-7(B)(1)( d) the L egislature had 6 m ad e a pol ic y de ci sio n w ith in its pur vie w , giv ing “ ne wde ptha nd m eanin g to A rt ic le 7 V II I, S ec tio n 3” in “ ac know le dg[ ing ] the gr eat pu bli c be ne fi t pr ovi de d by

nonpr of it 8 continu ing care r etirem ent com m uniti es” and by

“ helping assure [the i r] financial 9 via bil ity , ” not ing that the e xe m pti on i s a va ila

ble to suc h co m

m uni tie s th at

m ee t the 10 oth er r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) “ so l ong as aportio n of se rv ic es a nd 11 facilities ar e donated or rendered gra tu i t ously .” In addition, El Ca stillo argued that 12 sa tis fa ct ionof

the stat ut or y cl ai m

ne ce ssari ly

sa tis fi ed the c onst itu tio na l c la im

in 13 “ al le via tin g abur de n onthe gov er nm en t by su sta ini ng i ts m em be rs to a sig nif

ic an t 14 de gr ee, ce rta in ly far m or e th an th e ta x b ur de n t ha t i t i s s eek in g t o re li ev e it se lf o f.” 15 { 10} Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tex er ci s e i t s ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v ert h e B o ar d ’s 16 decision in terpreti n g Sec tion 7 -36-7(B)( 1)(d) but instead exercised its original 17 j ur isd ic tio n ov er

both E l C as til lo’ s st at

uto ry a nd c onst itu tio na l cla im s. W ith out 18 ad dr es sin g any of the Bo ar d’ s fi ndi ngs of f ac t, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed ne wf ind ing s6

1 of fac t which con tradicted t he finding s of t he Board. The dist rict court concluded that 2 Arti cl e V II I, S ec tio n 3 w as not se lf -e xe cu tin g and tha t by

e na ct ing S ec tio n 7- 36- 3 7(B)( 1)(d), the Le gislature had “ spelled out how the constituti onal p ro visio n ‘ used 4 for char itable purpos es’ is to be interpreted. ” Consequentlythe district court declined 5 to “ re ad int o the sta tut e a re qui re m en t tha t E l C as til lo r en de r a ‘ pr im ar y or sub stanti al ’ 6 publ ic be ne fi t” an d he ld tha t, by m ee tin g th e pla in l an gua ge r equir em en ts o f Se ct ion 7 7-36-7(B)(1)( d), E l Castillo had also f ulfilled the charitable use requirem ents for tax 8 ex em pti on unde r A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 9 { 11} T he S an taF e Co unty A sse sso r ap pe al ed

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n t o the 10 Co urt of

Appe al s a s an a

ppe al of r igh t purs ua nt to R

ule 12- 201 N MR

A a nd R ule 12- 11 20 2 NM RA. El Castil lo Ret. Residences v. M artin ez , 201 5- N MC A -0 41, ¶ 7, 346 P
. 3d 12 1164
. T he A sse sso r ar gue d th at a n a ppe al of r igh t w as the pr ope r pr oc ed ur e be ca use 13 the dis tr ic t c ourt util iz ed onl y its or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n and not its ap pe llate j ur isd ic tio n 14 w he n m ak ing it s de te rm ina tio n. 15 { 12} The Co ur t o f App eal s d et erm in edit on ly h adjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whet he r El 16 Cas ti ll o m etth e co ns ti tu ti on al req ui rem en ts f o r th e ta x e xe m

pt io n, n ot whet he r El 17 Ca sti llo w as e nti tle d to ata x e xe m pti on unde r the s ta tut e. I t he ld tha t the not ic e of 18 ap pe al a nd doc ke tin g st at em en t “ w er e suf fi ci en t t o pe rf

ec t the appe al of

the7

1 co nst itu tio na l i ssu e . . . [ but that] the A sse sso r fa ile d to f ile ape tit ionf

or w ri t of 2 ce rt ior ar i t o pe rf

ec t hi s a ppe al a s to the statutor y issue f ir st d ec ide d by

the P ro te st 3 Board and review ed by the district court in its app ellate j urisdictio n.” Id

. ¶ 8. 4 { 13} T he Co urt of Ap pe al s re ve rs ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat E l C as til lo 5 w as c onst itu tio na lly

e xe m pt fr om pr ope rty ta xa tio n and h el d th at

“ E l C as til lo d id n ot 6 dir ec tly

a nd i m m ed ia te ly use its pr ope rty pr im ar ily a nd s ubst an tia lly

f or ac ha ri ta ble 7 pur pose r ec ogni ze d un de r A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C ons ti tu tion 8 because it does not con fer a substanti al benefit of r eal w orth and im portance to an 9 indefinite class of p erso ns who are m em bers of the genera l publ ic.” E l C ast ill o , 10 2015 -N MC A -0 41, ¶

¶ 44- 45. Be ca

use the Co urt of App eal s r ef use d j ur isd ic tio n to 11 re vie w w he the r E l Ca sti llo w as el igi ble fo r ta x exe m pti on unde r the statut e, it

did not 12 dis cu ss the re la tio nshi p be tw ee n A rt ic le V II I, Se ct ion 3 an d Se ct ion7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) 13 or s pecify whether its reversa l of t he district court on const itutio nal ground s left intact 14 the district court’ s ruling th at E l Castillo was entitled to exem ption under the statute. 15 See E l C

ast ill o , 201 5- N MC A -0 41 ¶ 12. 16 { 14} W e g r a n t e dc e rt i o r a r i t o c o n s i d e r t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n ds t a tu t o ry p r o vis ion s 17 that gov ern perm issib le exem ption s from eq u al t axation of real property in New 18 Me xic o an d to c lari fy the sub j ec t m atte r ap pr opr ia te f or appe llate r ev ie win8

1 circum stances such as these. 2 II. DISC US SION 3 { 15} Article V III , S ection 3 of t he Ne w Mexico Constitu tion p rovides no specifics 4 in i ts e xe m

pt io n of “ al l pr ope rty

use d f or . . . c ha ri ta

ble pur pose s” f ro m pr ope rty 5 ta xa tio n. T he L eg isl at

ur e, w hic h pre vio usl y ha d r ec ogni ze d inS ec tio n 7- 36- 7( B) (1 ) 6 tha t t ax es m ay

not be im pose d on“ pr ope rty

e xe m pt f ro m pr ope rty ta xa tio n un de r the 7 federa l or state constituti on, feder al law , the Property Ta x Code or other law s,” a dded 8 Subsection (B)(1)( d) in a 2008 am endm ent, providing th at 9 this in cludes property that is operated either as a co mm u n i t y to which 10 the Co nti nui ng C ar e A ct . . . appl ie s or

a s af ac ili ty li ce nse d by

the 11 de partm en t of

he al th t o op er at e as anur sin g f ac ili ty , a ski lle d nurs ing 12 fa ci lity , a n a dul t re sid en tia l care fa ci lity , an int er m ed ia te ca

re fa ci lity or 13 anint er

m ed ia te c ar e fa ci lity

f or the de ve lop m en ta lly

dis ab le d; and is 14 owne d by

a ch ari tabl e n ur si ng , ret ire m en t o r lo ng -te rm care org an iz at ion 15 tha t: 1) ha s be en gr an te d ex em pti on fr om

the f ed er al inc om e ta x by

the 16 U nit ed St at es c om m iss ion er of int er na l r ev enue a s an or ga niz at ion 17 described in Section 501 (c)( 3) of the Internal R evenue Code of 1986, as 18 am en de d or re num be re d; 2) dona te s or

r en de rs gr at

uit ousl y aportio n of 19 its se rv ic es or

f ac ili tie s; and 3 ) use s a ll funds re m ai nin g a ft er paym en t 20 of its usua l and ne ce ssary ex pe nse s of ope ratio n, inc lud ing the paym en t 21 of

li en s and e nc um

br an ce s up on i ts pro pe rty , to furthe r its c ha ri ta ble 22 pur

pose , i nc luding the m ai nte na nc e, im pr ove m en t or

e xpansi on o f its 23 fa ci lit ie s. 24 T he statut e pr ovi de s no gui de lin es f or de te rm ini ng w ha t l ev el of c ha ri ta ble don at ion s 25 w ill sa tis fy

the r equir em en t of

don at ing or rend er ing gr at uit ousl y “ a portio n of

it s9

1 services or f

acilities.” Id

. 2 { 16} El C astillo asserts that it is entitled to be e xem pt from taxation because it has 3 m et the term s of the statute but do es not challenge the C ourt of Appeals hold ing th at 4 it is n ot e xe m

pt unde r A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. T he 5 Assessor argues that E l Castillo’ s failure to m eet the re quirem ents of Article V III , 6 Se ct ion3 ne ce ssari ly

m eans tha t Se ct ion 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) cannot be c onst itu tio na lly 7 ap pli ed to grant E l Ca sti llo ane xe m pti on. F or the r ea sons that f

oll ow , w e ag re e w ith 8 the Assessor. 9 A . Th e A sse sso r Ha s S ta nd in g t o C ha lle ng e th e C on st it ut ion ali ty of S ec ti on 10 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) as I t A pp lie s t o E l C ast ill o 11 { 17} A s apr el im inary m atte r, E l C as til lo c ha lle nge s th e A sse sso r’ s standi ng t o r ai se 1 2 t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y o f S e c t i o n 7
- 3 6
- 7 ( B ) ( 1 ) ( d ) , r e l y i n g on S t a t e ex rel. O verton v. 13 N.M

. State Tax Comm ’n , 1969 -N MS C- 140, ¶¶ 8, 19- 20, 81 N
. M. 28, 462 P
. 2d 6 13. 14 A lth oughE l C as til lo r ai se s th e iss ue f or the f ir st t im e in this Co ur t, “ th e la ck of 15 [s tandi ng] is a pot en tia l j ur isd ic tio na l de fe ct , w hic h m ay not be w ai ve d and m ay

be 16 raised at any

stage of the procee ding s.” G unaj i v
. M ac ias , 200 1- N MS C- 028, ¶ 20, 17 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (internal quo tation m arks an d ci t ations om itted). 18 “ [S ] tandi ng i n our co urts i s no t de riv ed fro m the state c onst itu tio n, a nd i s no t 19 juri sd ic ti on al ” u nl es s t he cau se of a ct io n i s cr eat edby stat ut e. De utsche Bank Nat’l10

1 Tr ust Co

. v . J ohns ton , 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶ 11, 36 9 P.3 d 10 46 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 2 m ar ks and c itatio n om it te d) . Ne verthe le ss, “ as am atte r of j udi ci al pol ic y

if not of 3 j ur isd ic tio na l ne ce ssi ty , our c ourts h av e ge ne ra lly re qui re d tha t a lit igant d em onstrate 4 inj ur y in fa ct , ca

usa tio n, an d re dr es sa

bil ity to inv oke the c ourt’ s auth or ity to de ci de 5 the m erits of a c ase. ” Id

. ¶ 13 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 6 { 18} In O ve rto n , thi s C ourt h el d th at ac ounty a sse sso r did

not ha ve standi ng t o 7 b r i n g a d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g m e n t a c t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y of a ta x8 ex em pt io n s ta tu te be cau se no jus ti ci ab le co nt ro ve rs y was pre se nt . See 1969 -N MSC9 14 0, ¶¶ 1, 9, 1 9. O ve rto n is not ap pli ca ble to the standi ng ana ly sis in thi s c as e be ca use 10 as kin g th is C ourt t o de ci de the c onst itutio na lity of S ec tio n 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) a s it 11 ap pli es to E l C as til lo i s no t a r eque st f or a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t. H er e, a j ust ic ia ble 12 controversy

exists with regard to E l Castillo’ s claim o f entit lem ent to a tax 13 ex em pti on. T his is not a the or et ic al que sti on, an d the A sse sso r doe s have a n in te re st 14 in th e o ut co m e. See N MS A 197 8, § 7- 36 -2 (A) (1 995) ( “ T he c ounty a sse sso r is 15 re spon sib le an d has the au tho ri ty fo r the va lua tio n of all pr ope rty subj ec t t o va lua tio n 16 fo r pr ope rty

ta xa tio n purp ose s. ”) ; N MS A 197 8, § 7- 38- 17( G ) (2 011) (“ A c ounty 17 assessor or the assessor’ s em ploy ee wh o k n o wing ly

perm its a claim ant for an 18 exem ption to rece ive the benefit of an exem ption to which the claim ant is not enti tled11

1 is g uil ty

of am isd em eanor

a nd s ha ll be pun ish ed

by af ine of not m or e than on e 2 tho usand d oll ar s ( $1, 00 0) and sh al l a lso be auto m at ic al ly r em ove d f

ro m of fi ce or 3 di sm is se d fr om

em pl oym en t u p on co nv ic ti on un de r th is su bs ect io n.” ). Whe n El 4 Castillo filed the appeal from the Board’ s decision, the district court properly j oined 5 the A sse sso r as anappe lle e. T he re is no p ar ty m or e ap pr opr ia te than th e A sse sso r to 6 ap pe al the de ci sio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. 7 { 19} W e co nc lud e tha t the A sse sso r ha s st an din g to br ing be fo re the ap pe llate c ourts 8 the statutory

and constitu tional issues relating to whether El C astillo is ent itled to an 9 ex em pti on f ro m r ea l pr ope rty

ta xa tio n. 10 B. Bo th t he D ist ri ctC ou rtan d th e C ou rt of A pp ea ls E rr ed in Th ei r Ex er ci se 11 of

A pp el lat e Ju ri sd ic ti on 12 { 20} It is incum

bent on this Court to address the j urisdictio nal error s which occurr ed 13 in the e xe rc ise of

appe llate j ur isd ic tio n inboth th e dis tr ic t c ourt and the Co ur t of 14 Appe al s. Jur isd ic ti on al que sti ons ar e que sti ons of laww hic h th is C ourt r ev ie w s de 15 no vo . Smi th v. Cit

y o f S an ta Fe , 200 7- N MS C- 055, ¶ 10, 142 N
. M. 786 , 171 P. 3d 3 00. 16 “ A j ur isd ic tio na l de fe ct m ay not be w ai ve d and m ay

be r ai se d a t any

sta ge of the 17 proceedings, even sua spont e by the appellate court. ” A rmijo v. Save ‘ N G ain , 18 1989 -N MC A -0 14, ¶

4, 108 N
. M. 281 , 771 P
. 2d 9 89; see Ru le 12 -2 16 (B) NM RA. 19 1. The D istrict C ourt E rred When It D id N ot Exercise Its Ap pe llate12

1 Ju ri sd ic ti on ove r th e Bo ar d’ s D et er m in at ion 2 { 21} T he L eg isl at

ur e co nf er re d po w er

in the dis tr ic t c ourt t o r ev ie w , as a court of 3 fir st ap pe al , a fin al de ci si on of t he Bo ard
. See NMS A 197 8 , § 7 -38-28(A) (2015); 4 NMS A 1978, § 39-3-1.1 (1999). When acting in its app ellate role, the district court 5 m ay revers e an ag ency

decision if it determ ines that “ (1) the agency acted 6 fr au dul en tly , ar

bitrari ly , or ca

pr ic iou sly ; (2) the f

ina l de ci sio n w as not

sup porte d by 7 subs tanti al e vid en ce ; or ( 3) the ag en cy

did not a ct in ac co rd an ce w ithlaw . ” Se ct ion 8 3 9
- 3
- 1
. 1 ( D )
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt , i n i t s a p p e l l a t e c ap a c i t y, “i s l i mi t e di n t h e s a me 9 m anner as any other appellate body
. . . and m ust def er to the agen cy’s fa ct u al 10 determ ination s if suppo rted by subst antial evidence.” N. M

. B d. of P

sy ch olo gis t 11 E xa m ’r s v . L and , 200 3- N MC A -0 34, ¶ 5, 133 N
. M. 362 , 62 P
. 3d 1 244. 12 { 22} In addition to its appellate j urisdictio n, the district court has “ original 13 j ur isd ic tio n in a ll m atte rs a nd c au se s no t e xc ep te d inthi s c onst itu tio n. ” N
. M. Co nst . 14 ar t. V I, § 13
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i s ac ourt of ge ne ra l j ur isd ic tio n and has the auth or ity 1 5 t o c o n s i d e r

a l l ma t t e r s n o te x c l u s i v e t o o t h e r c o u rt s , i n c l u d i n g c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms 16 in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. Maso v. N. M. Tax’n & Re venue D ep’t , 200 4- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 14, 17 135 N.M. 152, 85 P.3d 276 (“ [T ] he distric t co u rt has the authority to consid er 18 constitu tional claim s in the first instance.”)
.13

1 { 23} A “ district c ourt c an sim ultaneous ly exercise its a ppellate an d o riginal 2 j urisdictio n.” Id

. ¶ 17. O n appeal to a district co u rt o f cl aim s first considered by an 3 agency , where the a

pp ea l also asserts constitu tional and o ther claim s in the dis trict 4 court that wer e bey ond the scope of the agency ’ s adjudicative authority , “ the district 5 co urt sh oul d c onsi de r ea ch cl ai m ac co rd ing to its ap pr opr ia te standard of re vie wa nd 6 m ai nta in the dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n th e co urt’ s a ppe llate a nd o rig ina l j ur isd ic tio n in 7 rendering its decision .” Id

. 8 { 24} T he dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have e xe rc ise d it s a ppe llate j ur isd ic tio n ov er the 9 Bo ard ’s det e r mi n a ti on reg ard in g t he ap pl ic ab il it y of S ect io n 7 -3 6- 7( B)(1 )(d ) to El 10 Ca sti llo a nd r ev ie w ed w he the r the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n w as a rb it rary a nd c ap ri ci ous, 11 unsu pported bysubst antial evidence, or otherwise contrar y to law a s required under 12 Se ct ion39- 3- 1. 1( D ). E xe rc isi ng its or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n ove r the sta tut or y cl ai m a nd 13 issui ng new findings o f fa ct w hich contradicted the finding s of the Board w as err or. 14 In i ss uing ne wf

ind ing s of

f ac t, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ct ed out sid e its pr ope r ap pe llate 15 juri sd ic ti on . Se e, e . g. , Ca de na v. B ernal ill o Cty
. B d. of Ct y. Co m m ’r

s , 20 06 -NMCA16 036, ¶ 3 , 1 39 N. M. 300, 131 P. 3d 68 7 (concludin g that “ the district court acted 17 outsi de of its capacity as an appell at e cou rt by engaging in fac t-finding”); 18 V ande rV oss en v . Ci tyof E

span ola , 200 1- N MC A -0 16, ¶ 26, 130 N
. M. 287 , 24 P
. 3d14

1 319 (“ [T ] he district court exercising appellate j urisdictio n under Section 39-1-1.1[] 2 is n ot a

f ac t- de te rm ini ng b ody
. ”) ; H ahn v. Ct y. A ssesso r fo r B ernal ill o Cty
. ( In re 3 M ill er ) , 1975-NMC A- 116, ¶ 52, 88 N .M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182 (“ If ther e is subst antial 4 evidence in the record to support a decision of a county valuation protests bo ard, [an 5 ap pe ll at e co ur t i s] bo un d t he reb y .”), re v’ d on oth er gro unds , 197 6- N MS C- 039, 89 6 N
. M. 547 , 555 P. 2d 1 42. H ad the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev ie w ed the Bo ar d’ s de te rm ina tio n 7 unde r the pr ope r standard of r ev ie w , it

is lik ely th e distri ct

c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n 8 w oul d have be endif

fe re nt. 9 2. The C ourt of Ap peals Erre d Whe n It R efuse d Jurisdict ion to Re view the 10 Constit utionality of the Sect ion 7-36-7(B)(1)( d) E xem ption as A pplied to 11 El C ast ill o 12 { 25} In addition to the district court’ s j urisdictio nal error , the C ourt of Appeals er red 13 w he n it

r ev ie w ed the c onst itu tio na l qu es tio n a pa rt fro m the statut or

y que sti on. T he 14 Co urt of

Appe al s to ok the pos iti on tha t i t di d “ not have j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe 1 5 qu e s t i o n o f

w h e t h e r E l C a s t i l l o i s e n t i t l e d

t o ac h a r i t ab l e p r o p e rt y - t a x e xe m pti on 16 under Section 7-36-7(B). ” E l C ast ill o , 2015 -N MC A -0 41, ¶ 12. T his de te rm ina tio n by 17 the Court of Appeals im properly disregards the relationship b etwe en the Ne w Me xico 18 Constitu tion and the statutes enacted by the Le gislature. Astatute m ust be interpreted 19 an d app li edin ha rm on y wit h c on st it ut io na ll y

im po se d l im it at io ns . See N MS A 197 8,15

1 § 12-2A-18(A) (3) (1997) (“ A statute or r ule is construed . . . [to] avoid an 2 unc onst itu tio na l
. . . res ult. ”) ; W el ls v

. Ct y. of V ale nc ia , 198 2- N MS C- 048, ¶ 11, 98 3 N
. M. 3, 644 P
. 2d 5 17 ( “ [T ] he L eg isl at ur e is p re sum ed

to h av e en act ed

the statut e 4 w ith in the bo unds of

the c onst itu tio n, a nd, to that e nd, w e m ust so c onstru e the 5 statute.”). The constit ution al and statutory claim s as argued by

the parties, considered 6 and decided by

the district court, and ra ised on appeal to the Court of Appeals w ere 7 int er tw ine d and i nse para

ble
. The Co ur t of

Appe al s e rr ed

w he n it did not de ci de 8 w he the r E l Ca sti llo co uld be ex em pt fr om pr ope rty ta xa tio n unde r Se ct io n 7-36
- 9 7( B)(1 )(d ) de sp it e it s co ns ti tu ti on al in el ig ib il it y forex em

pt io n. Acc or di ng ly, we 10 granted certiorar i to address this issue. 11 C . Le gis lat ion Gr an tin g T ax E xe m pt ion s M us t Be In te rp re te d in Li gh t of 12 R es tr ic ti on s S etF or th in A rt ic le V III of t he N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 13 { 26} W

he the r S e c t i on 7-36-7(B) (1)(d) c an grant a tax exem ption to El Ca stillo raises 14 is su es of c on st it ut io na l i nt erp ret at i o n t h atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Pinghua Zhao v. 15 Montoya , 201 4- N MS C- 025, ¶ 1 1 , 3 2 9 P
. 3 d

6 7 6
. “ T h e L eg isl at

ur e’ s in he re nt a

uth or ity 16 and discretion to exerc ise the State’ s power of taxation is plenary ‘ except in so far as 17 lim ited by

the Constitu tion.’ ” Id

. ¶ 14 (citation om itted). 18 “ [S ] ta te c onst itu tio ns are not gr an ts of pow er to the le gis lativ e, to the 19 ex ec uti ve a nd t o th e j udi ci ar y , but ar e lim itatio ns on the pow er s of e ac h. 20 No branch of the state m ay add to, nor detrac t from

its clear m andate. I t16

1 is a

f unc tio n of

the j udi ci ar

y w he n it s j ur isd ic tio n is prope rl y inv oke d to 2 m ea sur e the ac ts of the e xe cu tiv e an d th e le gis la tiv e br an chsol el y by the 3 y ard st ic k o f th e co ns ti tu ti on .” 4 St a t e e x r e l

. Cl a r

k v . J o hnso n , 1 995- N MS C- 048, ¶ 20, 120 N
. M. 562 , 904 P
. 2d 1 1 5 (citation om itted). 6 { 27} W e presum e that enactm ents of the Le gis l at ure ar e w ithin constitu tional 7 boun dari es , a nd w e “ giv e ef fe ct to the le gis la tiv e int en t unle ss it cle ar ly appe ar s to be 8 in c onflict w ith the Cons titutio n.” B ound s v. Sta te ex re l. D ’A nto nio , 2013-NMS C9 037, ¶ 11, 306 P
. 3d 4 57 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ [I ] t i s th e 10 part ic ular dom ai n of t he le gis la tur e, a s th e voi ce of the pe opl e, to m ak e publ ic 11 policy .” H

art ford I ns. Co

. v . Cl ine , 2006 -N MS C- 033, ¶ 8, 140 N
. M. 16, 139 P
. 3d 1 76 12 (alteration in original) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 13 { 28} E l C

ast ill o r el ie s he av ily

on La Vida Llena v. Montoya , 2013-NMC A- 048, ¶¶ 1 4 5- 6, 2 0 , 2 9 9 P
. 3 d 4 5 6 , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t c o n s t i tu t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s h a ve no 15 be ar ing on the appl ic at ionof S ec tio n 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d)
. I n La V ida L le na the Co urt of 16 Appe al s lo oke d on ly

a t the f ac ia l tex t of Se ct ion 7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) to re ac h it s ho ldi ng 1 7 t h a tt h e s t a tu t o ry re qu i r e men tt h a tt h e f a c i l i t y “ d o n a t e s o r r e n d e r s g r a tu i t o u s l y a 18 portio n of

it s f ac ili tie s or

se rv ic es ” im

pose d no thres ho ld on th e am ount of the 19 don at io n. Id

. ¶

1. T he Co urt of

Appe al s di d no t c onsi de r w he the r Se ct ion7- 36-17

1 7( B) (1 )( d) w as li m ite d by A rt ic le V II I or w he the r the fa ci lity in que sti on w oul d have 2 qualified for exem

ption under that constit ution al lim itation. Beca use we hold that 3 Section 7-36-7(B)(1) (d) m ust be read in light o f A rticle V III , S ecti o n 3 of the N ew 4 Mexico Constitu tion, we overrule La V ida L le na to the ex te nt tha t it m ay be re ad to 5 indicate otherwise. 6 { 29} Ne w Me xico law is clear in conclud ing th at A rticle V III , S ection 3 is self7 ex ecu ti ng an d d oe s n ot req ui re s ta tu to ry en act m en t. See CA VU

Co. v . M artin ez , 201 4- 8 N MS C- 029, ¶

15, 332 P
. 3d 2 87 (“ ‘U nli ke m ost c onst itu tio na l e xe m

pti ons, [ A rt ic le 9 V II I, S ec tio n 3] doe s no t m er el y de fi ne af ie ld o f ex em

pti on, w ith in whic h th e 10 le gis la tiv e pow er m ay ope rate fr om tim e to tim e at its dis cr et ion
. I t i s a ff irm at ive a nd 11 se lf -e xe cu tin g. I t c re at es e xe m pti ons. It inve sts c iti ze ns w ithc onst itu tio na l r igh ts, 12 w hic h a dm ini str at ive of fi ce rs or L eg isl at ur e m ay not im

pa ir , an d w hic h c ourts m

ust 13 pr ote ct . ’ ” (quot ing Tem ple Lodge No. 6, A. F. & A. M. v. Tierney , 193 3- N MS C- 013, 14 ¶ 29, 37 N
. M. 178 , 20 P
. 2d 2 80) ). Arti cl e VIII, S ec tio n 3 o pe rate s a s ali m it on the 15 L eg isl at

ur e’ s po w er

to re de fi ne c at eg or ie s of pr ope rty w hic h w ill be ex em

pt f ro m 16 ta xa ti on . See Clark, 199 5- N MS C- 048, ¶ 20; se e als o Dillard v. N .M . T ax Comm ’n , 17 1948 -N MSC- 069, ¶¶ 5-9, 53 N. M. 12, 20 1 P. 2 d 345 (interpreting Article V III , 18 Se ct ion s 1, 3, a nd 5 a nd c onc lud ing that “ [t]he pr ope rty of the w if e of asol die r or18

1 sa ilo r is n ot ex em

pt f ro m ta xa tio n, nor

c anthe le gis la tur e en ac t a statut e tha t w ill ha ve 2 tha t e ff ec t w ith out

[ a co nst itu tio na l] a m en dm en t auth or iz ing it ”) ; Sim s v . V osbu rg , 3 1939 -N MS C- 026, ¶

4, 43 N
. M. 255 , 91 P
. 2d 4 34 ( re ly ing on A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio ns 4 1, 3, a nd 5 in sta tin g th at “ [a ] ll tangi ble pr ope rty in N ewMe xic o is sub j ec t t o ta xa tio n 5 in p ro portio n to va lue , a nd s houl d be ta xe d, u nl es s sp ec if ic al ly e xe m pte d by the 6 co nst itu tio n or by its auth or ity ”) ; State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Sta te Tax Com m’ n , 193 6- 7 N MS C- 029, ¶

8, 40 N
. M. 299, 58 P. 2d 1204 (“ By the te rm s of se ct ion3 of

a rt ic le 8, 8 ce rt ai n sp ec if

ic pr ope rty

is exem pt f ro m ta xa tio n, a nd b y

se ct ion5 the re of

the 9 L eg isl at

ur e is au tho ri ze d to ex em

pt fr om ta xa tio n c er

ta in o the r spe ci fi c pr ope rty ; and 10 no othe r pr ope rty is or can be e xe m pte d. T he Co nst itu tio n, in ef fe ct , c la sse s tangi ble 11 property

into th at exem

pt from taxation, that which m ay

be exem pted, and that which 12 m ust be ta xe d. ”) ; A lbu que rque A lum nae A ss’ n of Ka ppa Ka ppa G am m a F

rat ernit y 13 v. Tierney , 193 3- N MS C- 011, ¶ ¶ 3, 9- 10, 26, 37 N
. M. 156, 20 P. 2d 2 67 ( re j ec tin g a 14 statute-based claim

of tax exem

ption for a college sorority property and hold ing th at 15 “ the Constitu tion m akers intended to cover the whole field of exem ption ,” that 16 “ [A rticle V III ,] Sec tion 3 is affirm ative and self-exec uting ,” that “ [i] t creates 17 ex em pti ons, ” an d tha t “ [t ] he re is a str ong pr es um pti on ag ai nst an int en t to p er m it the 18 Le gislature to create others”)
.19

1 { 30} T he pe opl e al w ay s have the pow er to am en d c onst itu tio na l r estri ction s by 2 expressly

and lawf ully doing s o . Fo r ex am

ple, N ewMexico voters have am ended 3 A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3 t o gi ve asup er m aj or ity of the L eg isl at

ur e the lim ite d auth or ity 4 to ex em

pt pe rs on al pr op ert y fro m tax at io n. Se e, e . g. , 1972 N. M. L aw s, Constitutio nal 5 A m en dm en t 2, a t 70 3- 04 ( pr oposing the 197 2 c onst itu tio na l am en dm en t t o A rt ic le 6 V II I, S ec tio n 3 tha t gr an te d the L eg isl at ur e au tho ri ty

to ex em pt p er sona l pr ope rty

by 7 sta tut e upon pa ssa ge by a thr ee -f ourths m aj or ity vot e of al l m em be rs ). Bu t no 8 co nst itu tio na l auth or ity ha s be en gr an te d fo r the L eg isl at ur e to e xe m

pt r ea l pr ope rty 9 by statute. Consequently , S ection 7-36-7(B)(1)( d) m ay not be interpreted or applied 10 to g rant e xe m

pti ons tha t are not

auth or iz ed

by A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3. 11 D . El C ast ill o Does N ot Qu ali fy f or Ta x E xe m pt ion U nd er A rt ic le V III , 12 Sect ion 3 or Sect ion 7-36-7(B)(1)( d) Because Its Pr operty Does NotCr eate 13 Su bs ta nt ial P ub lic Be ne fi t Th ro ug h Primary U se Th at F ur th er s a 14 C on st it ut ion all y A ut ho ri ze d Ex em ptP ur po se 15 { 31} Controllin g New Mexico precedent has con sistentl y interpreted A rticle V III , 16 Se ct ion3 t o exe m

pt only pr ope rty tha t cr eate s su bst an tia l pu

bli c be ne fi t thr oughuse 17 that directly , im

m ediately , prim arily , and sub stant i al ly furthers its exem

pt purpo se. 18 Se e, e . g. , CAVU

, 201 4- N MS C- 029, ¶

¶ 21- 23, 29- 30 ( ap ply in g th is f ram ew ork in 19 an al y zi ng w he the r use of a pr ope rty

f urthe rs e xe m

pt p ur pose s)
. T his is not

a 20 m echanical te s t of eligibilityfor exem ption but ins tead requires a flexible inqui ry20

1 al low ing f

ac t- spe ci fi c de te rm ina tio ns i nf orm ed by his tor

y an d po lic y

c onsi de ratio ns. 2 Id

. ¶ ¶ 13, 20. A cc or din gly , the int er pr et at ion of the se lim its m ay vary de pe ndi ng u

pon 3 th e p art ic ul ar p ro pe r t y and us e atis su e. Se e, e . g. , Pe cos Rive r Open Spaces, I nc. v . 4 Ct y . of San M

iguel , 2013-NMC A- 029, ¶¶ 22-25, ___ P. 3d __ _ (allowing an 5 exem ption for vacant, undeveloped, and unim proved land when it provid ed 6 subs tanti al publ ic be ne fi t i n it s id le state a nd w he re suc h us e furthe re d it s c ha ri ta ble 7 pur pose of c onse rv at ion ); Geo rg i a O ’ K e e f fe Mus eu m v. Cty . of

Sa nt a Fe , 200 3- 8 NMC A- 003, ¶ 56, 133 N. M. 297, 62 P .3d 754 (interpre ting the requirem ent of direct 9 an d im m ed ia te use f

or e duc at ion al pur

pose s br oa dly

to perm it co nside ratio n of the 10 intri nsi c ed

uc at ion al va lue of

am use um a nd o f of

f- site ed uc at ion al pr ogr am s and 11 activities closely

relate d to the m

useum collection). 12 { 32} D es pite the f

le xib le na tur e of

our a na ly sis , “ [t ] he e xe m

pti on g rante d [ to] 13 ed uc at ion al a nd c hari ta

ble ins tit uti ons pr oc ee ds upon the the or y of the pub lic goo d 14 ac co m

pli she d by

the m an d the pe cu liar be ne fi ts der ive d by the publ ic in ge ne ra l f ro m 15 their conduct.” Pe cos Rive r Open Spaces , 201 3- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 9 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 16 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he ratio na le fo r ex em pti on de pe nds upon an“ im pli ci t 17 quid pro quo betwee n the State and an exem pt organization .” CAVU

, 2014-NMS C18 029, ¶ 30. “ ‘ Pr ope rty

w hic h is e xe m

pt f ro m ta xa tio n do es not share in the bur de n [ of21

1 pay ing f

or the c ost of gov er nm en t]
. T he re fo re , in ex ch an ge f or it s ex em pt sta tus , [ the 2 use of] such property

m ust confer a substitu te substant ial benefit o n the publ ic.’ ” Id

. 3 (quot ing NR

A Spe ci al Con tri but ion F und v. B d. of Ct

y. Co m m ’r

s , 197 8- N MC A -0 96, 4 ¶ 38, 92 N .M. 541, 591 P.2d 672). Asubst antial publ ic benefit is “ [a] benefit of rea l 5 wor th an d i m

po rta nc e to an in de fin it e cl as s o f pe rs on s wh o a re a p artof t he pu bl ic .” 6 NRA , 197 8- N MC A -0 96, ¶ 45. 7 { 33} App lying th es e st an da rd s, the Co ur t of Appe al s corr ect ly de te rm in ed th at El 8 Cas ti ll o’s u se of i ts pro pe rty did no t cr eat e an y su bs ta nt ia l p ub li c b e n e f it
. See El 9 Ca sti llo , 201 5- N MC A -0 41, ¶ ¶ 30- 32, 44. A fa ci lity tha t c ar es f or the e lde rl y

m igh t 10 be entitled to a charitable use exem ption if, in doin g so, it benefits the general public. 11 See R et
. R anc h, In c. v. Cu rry Ct y. V alu ati on Prot es t B d. , 1976 -N MC A -0 10, ¶ ¶ 6, 9- 12 10, 89 N. M. 42, 546 P.2d 1199 (allowing exem ption based on charitable use where 1 3 a fa c i l i t y c a r e d f

o r a n a g e d “ s i c k a n d l a r g e l y i n d i g e n t ” p o p u l a t i o n d e p e n d e nt o n 14 Me dic ar e an d M ed ic ai d)
. Bu t E l C as til lo i s a se lf -s ust ai nin g c om

m uni ty that a cc ep ts 15 an d be ne fi ts o nly

f inanc ia lly an d m ed ic al ly

sc re en ed r es ide nts ba se d onr equir em en ts 16 ca lc ula te d inthe int er es ts o f fi na nc ia l se cu rit y f or E l C as til lo. T he se r es ide nts 17 collectively

pay for all the serv i ce s El C astillo prov ides, and if the care they need 18 ev en tua lly ex haust s th e re sour ce s pr ovi de d by part ic ular re sid en ts’ a dm iss iona nd22

1 m onth ly

fee s, any addition al car e they

rec eive is paid for b y the surplus fees c ollected 2 from other residents. Wh i l e El Castillo claim s it has not y et force d relocation of a 3 res id en t fo r in ab il it y

to pa y m on th ly fees, t he ex pr es s con tra ctua l lan gu ag e g iv es El 4 Ca sti llo the sol e dis cr et ionto te rm ina te the r es ide nt a gr ee m en t f or that r ea son. 5 { 34} A se lf

-s ust ai nin g c om

m uni ty doe s no t qu al if

y a s a c ha ri ty

m er el y be ca use it 6 do es no t p ro fit fro m

it s en te rp ris e. See M

ountain V

ie w H om es , I nc . v . Sta te T

ax 7 Comm ’n , 196 7- N MS C- 092, ¶ 15, 77 N
. M. 649 , 427 P
. 2d 1 3 ( hol din g th at anonpr of

it 8 hous ing de ve lop m en t bui lt fo r low an d m ode rate inc om e w orke rs w as not c ha ri ta ble 9 be ca use the “ te nants [ w er e] r equir ed to pa y f or the pr em ise s oc cu

pie d by the m w ith 10 the rentals being fixed so as to return the am ount estim ated as being necessary to pay 11 out the pr oj ec t” ). E ve n th e poss ibi lity that E l C as til lo w ill sub sid iz e som e re sid en ts 12 is n ot chari ta

ble w he n th ose sub sid ie s are pa id f or by the f ee s c oll ec te d f

ro m r es ide nts 13 w ho d id n ot r equir e su bs idi zatio n. I n abus ine ss- ec onom ic s se nse , E l C as til lo 14 functions as a nonp rofit p rovider of l ong-term care insurance, and lik e any insurance 15 co m pany it m ay pay out m or e to a partic ular indi vid ua l tha n that pe rs on has pa id i n. 16 But j ust as with private health or d isability or o ther in surance th at avo ids depend ence 17 on pu bl ic ass is ta nc e fo r th e p ol ic yho ld ers or b en efi ci ari es , pro vi di ng f o r i t s o wn 18 pay ing participants cannot be charac terized a s charitable.23

1 { 35} O ther juris dic tio ns h av e lik ew ise c onc lud ed that c ont inu ing c ar e re tir em en t 2 fa ci lit ie s w ithsim ilar adm iss ionr equir em en ts and f inanc ia l stru ct

ur es a re ine lig ibl e 3 fo r a chari tabl e p ur

po se tax ex em

pt io n. Se e, e . g. , Ca

pe R et
. Cm ty
. , I

nc . v . Ku eh le , 798 4 S. W .2d 201, 202-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990 ) (holdin g t h at a nonprofit, life c are, 5 r e t i r e m e nt , housi ng, and nursing fac ility adm itting only

those with financial resources 6 suf fi ci en t t o m ee t the f

ac ili ty c ost s w as not

e nti tle d to e xe m

pti on f ro m pr ope rty 7 ta xa tio n de spi te a ssu m ing obl iga tio ns fo r re sid en ts w ho be cam e ins olv en t, r ea soni ng 8 tha t “ [i ] t i s no t enou gh tha t C ap e Re tir em en t r eg ularl y und er w ri te s so m e of

the c ost s 9 of qua lif ie d r es ide nts a nd agr ee s to full y supp ort se le ct ed r es ide nts if

suc h r es ide nts 10 suf fe r fi nanc ia l r ev er se s bec au se its re tir em en t ho m e is n ot e qua lly a va ila ble to both 11 rich and poor” and therefore “ is not o perated to benef it society generally ” as re quired 12 of a ch ar ity ); P resby te ria n H om es of Sy nod ofN. J. v. D iv
. of Ta x A ppe als , 261 A
. 2d 13 143, 14 9- 50 (N
. J. 197 0) ( hol din g th at anonpr of

it co nti nui ng c ar e re tir em en t 14 co m m uni ty in w hic h r es ide nts pa id f or se rv ic es r ec ei ve d di d no t qu al if y f or the 15 ch ar ita

ble pur pose ta x e xe m

pti on ba se d on s ev er al “ pe rs ua siv e fa ct or s” inc lud ing it s 16 co ntr ac tua l r igh t t o te rm ina te ar es ide nt a gr ee m en t f or ina bil ity to pa y ); Ch ri st ian 17 Hom e for the Aged, Inc. v. Tenn. Assessme nt Appeals Comm ’n , 790 S. W
. 2d 2 88, 292
- 18 93 ( T enn. Ct
. App. 199 0) ( hol din g th at ar et ir em en t c om

m uni ty a dm itt ing onl y24

1 ind ivi dua ls m ee tin g f

inanc ia l and p hy sic al r equir em en ts w as not e ligib le f

or the 2 charitable use tax exem ption because, “ thou gh the benefits of the [com m unity ] are 3 signi ficant, only

those who are f

inancially and phy sically we ll off can rece ive them 4 [w hile t] hose less healthyand wea lthy are not benefited”). 5 { 36} U nde r the fac ts p re se nte d inthi s r ec or d, E l C as til lo d oe s no t pr ovi de a ny 6 b en ef i tt o an i n d ef

i n i t e cl as s o f p er s o n s wh o ar e m emb er s o f t h e g en er al p ub l i c. We 7 hol d th at

it c annot be e nti tled to ex em

ption f ro m ta xa tio n un de r Se ct ion7- 36- 8 7( B) (1 )( d) sim

ply by be ing ac ont inu ing c ar e fa ci lity w ith out a lso c re at ing a 9 subs tant i al p u b l i c b enefit that w ould entitle it to exem ption from

equal taxation as 10 au tho ri ze d by

A rt ic le V II I, S ec tio n 3 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 11 III. CON CLU SION 12 { 37} W e hold that El Castillo is not entitled to property -tax exem ption s under either 13 Se ct ion7- 36- 7( B) (1 )( d) or A rt ic le V II I, Se ct ion 3 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 14 W e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d f or en tr y of aj udgm en t i n c onf

orm ity w ith 15 thi s op ini on. 16 { 38} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice25

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 KA R EN L. TO WN SE N D , Ju dg e, sit ti ng b y d es ign at ion