Court Opinion

ID: 9551008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:46:34.617993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:53.338122
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Justice Oman speaking for the Supreme Court in Benevolent & P. Ord. of Elks v. New Mexico Prop. A. D., 83 N.M. 445, 493 P.2d 411 (1972) resolved any prior conflicts in the guides or rules for the construction of Article VIII, § 3 of the New Mexico Constitution: “The rule in New Mexico is that of reasonable construction, without favor or prejudice to either the taxpayer or the State, to the end that the probable intent of the provision is effectuated and the public interests to be subserved thereby are furthered.” Justice Oman also had this to say in the same opinion: “Although our constitutional provision does not require property to be used exclusively for charitable [or educational] purposes in order to come within the exemption, the uses for these purposes must be substantial and must be the primary uses made of the property.” The following definition of “educational” is a reasonable construction of that word as it is used in Article VIII, § 3, supra: “The . . word [educational as pertaining to education] taken in its full sense is a broad, comprehensive term and may be particularly directed to either mental, moral or physical faculties, but in its broadest and best sense it embraces them all, and includes not merely the instructions received at school, college, or university, but the whole course of training — moral, intellectual, and physical.” Ancient, Etc., S. R. of Freemasonry v. Board of Co. Com’rs., 122 Neb. 586, 241 N.W. 93 (1932). Applying the holdings in Benevolent & P. Ord. of Elks v. New Mexico Prop. A. D., supra, and the above definition of “educational” to the facts as found by the trial court, it is my opinion the plaintiff’s property was exempt and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.