A. A property owner may appeal an order made by a hearing officer or a county valuation protests board by filing an appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.

B. The director shall notify the appropriate county assessor of the decision and order of the district court and shall direct the assessor to take appropriate action to comply with the decision and order.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-28, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 68; 1982, ch. 28, § 15; 1990, ch. 22, § 3; 1998, ch. 55, § 19; 1999, ch. 265, § 19; 2015, ch. 73, § 22.

Cross references. — For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.

The 2015 amendment, effective July 1, 2015, authorized property owners to appeal orders made by hearing officers from the administrative hearings office; in the catchline, after "orders of the", deleted "director" and added "hearing officer"; and in Subsection A, after "order made by", deleted "the director" and added "a hearing officer".

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1" in Subsection A.

The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, rewrote Subsection A, deleted former Subsection B and redesignated former Subsection C as Subsection B; and in present Subsection B, inserted "district" and deleted "of appeals" following "court".

The 1990 amendment, effective May 16, 1990, in Subsection A, substituted "thirty days" for "forty-five days" and inserted "or such other time prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, NMRA" in the first sentence, substituted "shall be" for "must be" and added "and shall not be de novo" at the end of the second sentence and added the third sentence; deleted former Subsections B and C, relating to the record on appeal; and redesignated former Subsections D and E as Subsections B and C.

Lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings is a controlling consideration which must be resolved before going further, and an appellate court may raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Court bound by substantial evidence of record. — If there is substantial evidence in the record to support a decision of a county valuation protests board, the appellate court is bound thereby, and, in deciding if there is substantial evidence to support the decision, it must view the evidence in the most favorable light to support the finding, reversing only if convinced that the evidence thus viewed, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, cannot sustain the finding. Further, only favorable evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom will be considered, and any evidence unfavorable to the findings will not be considered. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70.

District court acted outside its proper appellate jurisdiction. — Where petitioner, a retirement and continuing care community, appealed to the district court the Santa Fe county valuation protests board's (board) decision upholding the county assessor's denial of petitioner's request for a property tax exemption, the district court erred in exercising its original jurisdiction over the statutory claim and issuing new findings of fact which contradicted the findings of the board; the district court should have exercised its appellate jurisdiction over the board's determination regarding the applicability of 7-36-7(B)(1)(d) NMSA 1978 to petitioner and reviewed whether the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law as required under 39-3-1.1(D) NMSA 1978. El Castillo Ret. Residences v. Martinez, 2017-NMSC-026, aff'g 2015-NMCA-041, and overruling La Vida Llena v. Montoya, 2013-NMCA-048, 299 P.3d 456.

Pronouncement of board not subject to review on appeal. — Statements of a judge as to reasons for the judgment, made before the judgment is entered, which statements are not embodied therein, cannot be considered as a part of the judgment, but are merely evidence of what the court had decided to do, a decision that the trial court can change at any time before the entry of a final judgment, and an order of a protest board is analogous to the judgment of a court; therefore, a pronouncement of a county protests board did not constitute its duly entered final order and was not subject to review on appeal of its final order. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Decision arbitrary if board has not considered all evidence. — The state has not given administrative boards the authority to catalogue which evidence shall be considered in deciding a protest, and when the administrative board has reached a decision and promulgated an order without considering all the evidence presented at the hearing, its decision and order is arbitrary and should be reversed. In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70.

Rulings void if not in accord with statute. — Rulings by an administrative agency not in accord with the basic statutory requirements relating to the agency will render its decision void. La Jara Land Developers, Inc. v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 1982-NMCA-006, 97 N.M. 318, 639 P.2d 605.

When county assessor did not follow any statutory method of valuation in 1976, but simply set the valuation of a shopping center back up to the 1972 figure, it was held that the decisions of the board were arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole, and otherwise not in accordance with law, and its orders were vacated. San Pedro S. Group v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1976-NMCA-116, 89 N.M. 784, 558 P.2d 53.

Court has no duty to search for authority supporting argument. — When taxpayer cited no authority to support its argument that the assessor's evidence of sales of certain property did not involve comparable sales, the appellate court had no duty to search for authority or consider taxpayer's claim unless it was apparent on the face of the claimed error that it had merit. Peterson Props. v. Valencia Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1976-NMCA-043, 89 N.M. 239, 549 P.2d 1074.

Judicial review based on whole record. — Judicial review of decisions by agencies are based on the whole record. This requires the courts to review and consider not only evidence in support of one party's contention, but also to look at evidence which is contrary to the finding; the reviewing court must then decide whether, on balance, the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Cibola Energy Corp. v. Roselli, 1987-NMCA-055, 105 N.M. 774, 737 P.2d 555.

Necessity of findings of fact and conclusions of law. — For purposes of judicial review, the order must, at least, indicate the reasoning of the board and the basis on which it acted; the expense incurred by having findings of fact and conclusions of law would be repaid 10-fold by the expense and energy saved on judicial review. Cibola Energy Corp. v. Roselli, 1987-NMCA-055, 105 N.M. 774, 737 P.2d 555.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies. — The legislature, in enacting a comprehensive scheme for administrative and judicial review, has provided the exclusive remedy for claims presented to the district court that property owned by all masonic lodges is exempt for taxation under N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 3, and the administrative remedies provided by the legislature must be exhausted before a declaratory judgment action will lie. Grand Lodge of Ancient & Accepted Masons v. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 1987-NMCA-081, 106 N.M. 179, 740 P.2d 1163, cert. denied, 106 N.M. 174, 740 P.2d 1158.

Taxpayer effectively rebutted presumption. — When taxpayer's valuation is supported by the whole record in that after rebutting the assessor's valuation and presenting a prima facie case for its own valuation the board failed to rebut taxpayer's appraisal, the decision of the board will be reversed and remanded with instructions that the board enter judgment for taxpayer in favor of its valuations. Cibola Energy Corp. v. Roselli, 1987-NMCA-055, 105 N.M. 774, 737 P.2d 555.

Law reviews. — For article, "Substantial Evidence Reconsidered: The Post-Duke City Difficulties and Some Suggestions for Their Resolution," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 525 (1988).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Standing of one taxpayer to complain of underassessment or nonassessment of property of another for state and local taxation, 9 A.L.R.4th 428.