Opinion ID: 891708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the enabling act allows land exchanges

Text: {110} However, there is other language in Section 10 that can reasonably be interpreted to allow land exchanges. The second paragraph of Section 10 provides, in part, that [disposition of any of said lands, or of any money or thing of value directly or indirectly derived therefrom, for any object other than that for which such particular lands, or the lands from which such money or thing of value shall have been derived, were granted or confirmed, or in any manner contrary to the provisions of this act, shall be deemed a breach of trust. (Emphasis added.) A thing of value derived from the disposition of land could quite clearly encompass land received in consideration for the disposition of the trust lands. The inclusion of money in the sentence also implies that consideration other than money may be accepted in the disposition of land. {111} This last point is corroborated in the fourth paragraph of Section 10, which reads in part: All lands, leaseholds, timber and other products of land before being offered shall be appraised at their true value, and no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained. Two observations can be made about this language. First, the language pertains to the sale or other disposal of lands, leaseholds, timber and other products. Second, the language refers to consideration, not just money. In Field, 31 N.M. at 144, 241 P. at 1037, this Court acknowledged the obvious-the expression dispose of is not synonymous with the word sell. It will be noted under the provisions of our Constitution the lands may be held or disposed of. In the language of the Supreme Court of the United States. . . . The expression to dispose of is very broad, and signifies more than to sell. Selling is but one mode of disposing of property. . . . And again, it is said that, when a contract respecting property contains an agreement to be performed by the owner of it when he shall dispose of or sell it, it is obvious that the words dispose of are not synonymous with the word sell; and their meaning must be determined by considering the remainder of the contract. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {112} Although the majority concludes that the phrase disposal thereof refers to leasehold, Maj. Op. ¶ 38, the seventh paragraph of Section 10 suggests that the Commissioner may do more than sell or lease the land. The seventh paragraph reads, in pertinent part: Every sale, lease, conveyance or contract of or concerning any of the lands hereby granted or confirmed, or the use thereof or the natural products thereof, not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this act shall be null and void. (Emphasis added.) If the Commissioner were limited to selling or leasing trust property, then why would Congress refer to other conveyances or contracts concerning the trust properties? Why would the Legislature mandate the Commissioner to make rules and regulations for the control, management, disposition, lease and sale of state lands and authorize the Commissioner to execute and authenticate for the state all deeds, leases, contracts or other instruments affecting such lands? Section 19-1-2 (emphasis added). Why would the New Mexico Constitution specify that the Commissioner shall select, locate, classify and have the direction, control, care and disposition of all public lands? N.M. Const. art. XIII, § 2. We do not interpret statutes in a way that renders language superfluous. Lion's Gate Water v. D'Antonio, 2009-NMSC-057, ¶ 29, 147 N.M. 523, 226 P.3d 622.