Opinion ID: 891708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exchanges for a Minimum Monetary Value May Be Considered In-Kind Sales

Text: {56} Because disposals are limited to the manner provided within the Enabling Act and exchanges are not provided for, if any exchanges are permitted, such exchanges must be in-kind sales. Exchanges of land based on the monetary value of each parcel may be considered equivalent to a sale where the appraised consideration is not cash, but land. Thus, any exchange authority is subject to the same restrictions that apply to all sales governed by Section 10: public notice, a public auction with sale to the highest and best bidder, and sale at a price no less than appraised value. {57} This understanding of the Enabling Act recognizes the Act's common ground with Arizona's Enabling Act. Arizona is our sister statethe same federal legislation enacted the New Mexico and the Arizona enabling acts, and the Arizona Enabling Act was nearly identical to the New Mexico Enabling Act when Arizona entered the Union. Compare Enabling Act, ch. 310, §§ 1-18, 36 Stat. 557, 557-68 with §§ 19-35, 36 Stat. 557, 568-79. In Fain, the Arizona Supreme Court considered the Arizona Enabling Act. Despite an amendment to the Arizona Enabling Act that clearly permit[ted] Arizona to authorize exchanges of public trust lands, the court concluded that such exchanges, still subject to the requirement for a minimum monetary value in return, amounted to in-kind sales that were subject to the Enabling Act's sales requirements. Fain, 790 P.2d at 246-47; but see id. at 253 (Corcoran, J., concurring in result) (The best indication that an exchange is not a `sale' . . . is that exchanges were not allowed as `sales' under the 1910 Enabling Act until it was amended in 1936 to include them. Implicit in that amendment is a recognition by Congress that the Enabling Act of 1910 did not allow exchanges.). Fain explained that when there is a fixed value at which the exchange is to be made, 790 P.2d at 247, the transaction is really a sale with consideration received in-kind rather than as cash, see id. at 246-48 (distinguishing its conclusion from jurisdictions that have differentiated between land exchanges and sales by quoting 30 Am.Jur.2d Exchange of Property § 3, 365-66 (1967), which explained that the exchange of properties without measuring the value in terms of money is an exchange, but that the disposal of property for valuable consideration measured in terms of money is a sale). {58} Although the New Mexico Enabling Act has not been amended to clearly permit . . . exchanges like the Arizona Enabling Act, except in terms of exchanges with the U.S. Department of the Interior, we find Fain persuasive. A conveyance of land in exchange for other land, when the value is measured in monetary terms, may be considered an in-kind sale. This conclusion is also consistent with the 1988 Opinion by the New Mexico Attorney General, characterizing exchanges for a minimum monetary value as in-kind sales. N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. 88-35. Indeed, given the Enabling Act's restrictions, the Land Commissioner can exchange only if the transaction passes scrutiny as a sale. As noted in Fain, Section 10 of the Enabling Act states in the most explicit terms that all state trust lands, leaseholds, timber, and so forth, shall be appraised at their true value and cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of for a consideration less than the value so ascertained. Thus, the Land Commissioner may not dispose of any trust land without first establishing its value in monetary terms and obtaining at least that monetary value as consideration. {59} For all the reasons discussed in this Section, we hold that, as an in-kind sale, any exchange of land must comply with the Enabling Act's sales provisions. We stress that a constitutional amendment remains an option to obtain authority to conduct land exchanges without these restrictions. The Land Commissioner's argument, that the 1988 Attorney General Opinion created so much confusion that congressional action and a constitutional amendment were required, concedes that the same need for such a constitutional amendment exists today. In the meantime, any ambiguity should be construed consistently with congressional intent and electoral will, and both counsel against the Land Commissioner's expansive interpretation.