A. Within twenty days after the filing of the petition if an appraisal has been prepared pursuant to Section 42A-1-5 NMSA 1978 or after the final confirmation of the report of the commissioners, a party may demand trial of any issues remaining in the cause. The cause shall be tried de novo, and unless waived, the parties shall be entitled to a trial by jury.

B. If no issues other than compensation are raised, the court shall render a final judgment awarding the property to the condemnor contingent upon payment of the awarded compensation to the condemnee. In all other cases, the court shall render final judgment upon decision of all contested questions of law and fact.

History: 1978 Comp., § 42A-1-21, enacted by Laws 1981, ch. 125, § 17.

Jury trial. — Based upon the language of Section 42A-1-21 NMSA 1978 and the statute's history, the legislature intended to provide for a jury trial on the issues of public use and necessity. Santa Fe S. Ry. v. Baucis Ltd. Liab. Co., 1998-NMCA-002, 124 N.M. 430, 952 P.2d 31.

Legislative intent. — It was not the intention of the territorial legislature to provide for an appeal under the eminent domain statutes, in the sense that it should be a different cause. State ex rel. Weltmer v. Taylor, 1938-NMSC-035, 42 N.M. 405, 79 P.2d 937.

Liberal construction in favor of trial de novo. — This section should be construed liberally in favor of the right to trial de novo by jury. El Paso Elec. Co. v. Milkman, 1959-NMSC-103, 66 N.M. 335, 347 P.2d 1002.

Trial de novo does not mean beginning of new action. Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy Dist., 1976-NMCA-082, 89 N.M. 516, 554 P.2d 678.

Trial de novo continuation of original condemnation petition. — This appeal to the district court for a trial de novo is, in effect, not an appeal in the usual sense, but rather a notice of dissatisfaction with the award of compensation and damage by the commissioners and a request for a new award to be made by a jury and the court, and the trial de novo is not the beginning of a new action but a continuation of the proceeding from the time of filing of the original petition in condemnation. Wells v. Arch Hurley Conservancy Dist., 1976-NMCA-082, 89 N.M. 516, 554 P.2d 678; Transwestern Pipe Line Co. v. Yandell, 1961-NMSC-173, 69 N.M. 448, 367 P.2d 938.

Either party can secure trial de novo. — Either party to a condemnation proceeding can, as a matter of right, secure a jury trial de novo. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Marquez, 1960-NMSC-099, 67 N.M. 353, 355 P.2d 287.

Denial of trial de novo. — Since it was held that the order confirming the commissioners' report in eminent domain is the final judgment, unless appealed to the district court, denial of a trial de novo does not amount to a default judgment against the state. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Marquez, 1960-NMSC-099, 67 N.M. 353, 355 P.2d 287.

Confirmation of report essential for judgment and execution. — A confirmation of the commissioner's report by the court is essential before a judgment can be entered and an execution issued, and orderly procedure requires confirmation of the report. El Paso Elec. Co. v. Milkman, 1959-NMSC-103, 66 N.M. 335, 347 P.2d 1002.

Notice of appeal from order and confirmation. — The notice of appeal, from which a trial de novo in the district court results, is from the said order and confirmation. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Marquez, 1960-NMSC-099, 67 N.M. 353, 355 P.2d 287.

When order becomes final. — The order confirming the report of the commissioners, where right of entry has been granted, becomes final 20 days thereafter, if notice of appeal to the district court is not filed as provided by this section, or waived by conduct of the parties. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Marquez, 1960-NMSC-099, 67 N.M. 353, 355 P.2d 287.

Jurisdiction of court not divested by failure to file notice. — The failure to file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court does not divest it of the jurisdiction it obtained in the first place over the parties and the subject matter, but jurisdiction continues throughout the proceedings. State ex rel. Deering v. District Court, 1950-NMSC-045, 54 N.M. 292, 222 P.2d 609.

Confirmed order not appealable to supreme court. — In a condemnation case an order confirming the report of appraisers (commissioners) is not appealable to the supreme court. Public Serv. Co. v. Wolf, 1967-NMSC-170, 78 N.M. 221, 430 P.2d 379 (1967).

Law reviews. — For note and comment, "Manning v. Mining and Minerals Division: Sovereign Immunity as a Bar Against Claims for Damages Brought under the U.S. Constitution," see 37 N.M. L. Rev. 573 (2007).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain § 132 et seq.; 27 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain §§ 636 et seq., 714 et seq.

Appeal relating to amount of condemnation award, 50 A.L.R.2d 1386.

Right to jury, 77 A.L.R.2d 548.

Payment or deposit of award in court as affecting condemnor's right to appeal, 40 A.L.R.3d 203.

29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 367, 369, 411.