Court Opinion

ID: 9785564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:13:09.990892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:29.930195
License: Public Domain

ROBINSON, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). {48} I respectfully dissent on one issue only. The majority states: “If Defendants were to permanently convey a road out of the state highway system such that the interests of the general public were harmed and not subserved, we would feel free to review those actions. Here, however, there is nothing to indicate that the interests of the general public were harmed or not subserved to an extent that would place into question Defendants’ authority[.]” Majority Opinion ¶28. {49} The problem with this analysis is that the majority finds a lack of the negative— that the actions of Defendants do not harm the interests of the general public. The law, Section 67-2-6, however, requires us to find the affirmative — that the actions of Defendants subserve the interests of the general public. The problem, as I see it, is that Defendants did not demonstrate to the district court that their actions in abandoning and vacating the SR 582 roadway in question were to “subserve[ ] the interest of the general public.” It is also accepted in the opinion that the district court made no specific determination or finding that Defendants acted to subserve the interest of the general public in abandoning and vacating this roadway. {50} Unfortunately, the determination or finding of subservience to the interest of the general public that should have been done is precisely what was not done and that is specifically required by Section 67-2-6. One might try to get around this by inferring that the widening of federal highway U.S. 84/285, requiring Defendants to seek a right-of-way from the Pueblo, subserved in the interest of the general public. This Court cannot do that. We do not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder. State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789. {51} Nevertheless, it is what Defendants are giving up, abandoning and vacating SR 582 — not what they are getting, the widening of U.S. 84/285, that must be determined to subserve the interest of the general public. {52} I do not take issue with the other holdings in this opinion. {53} I would remand to the district court for a determination of whether the abandonment and vacation of SR 582 subserves the interest of the general public as required by Section 67-2-6. {54} I, therefore, respectfully dissent.