{
  "id": 707113,
  "name": "Dorothy COLBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CORRALES, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Colborne v. Village of Corrales",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 16263",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.M. 103"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "739 P.2d 972"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804975
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "91"
        },
        {
          "page": "464"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0086-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 4993,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.747644260677765e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45551111281005185
    },
    "sha256": "1edf81d44865c74ccaa64419ae53468509a7bc1b17f8c0703f60fa5a46584c45",
    "simhash": "1:cf4b4a72f375bbff",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:22.270695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SOSA, Senior Justice, and STOWERS, WALTERS and RANSOM, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Dorothy COLBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CORRALES, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSCARBOROUGH, Chief Justice.\nThe district court of Sandoval County refused to order approval of appellant\u2019s proposed subdivision and refused to rule on appellant\u2019s claim of full legal and public access to the property. We affirm.\nWe summarize the trial court\u2019s findings of fact. In June 1983, appellant, Dorothy Colborne, sought approval from appellee, Village of Corrales (Village), for a subdivision of land within the planning and platting jurisdiction of the Village. Appellant\u2019s land is adjacent to the Corrales Main Canal. Appellant was informed at the time she requested subdivision approval that it was Village policy to require landowners to dedicate a sixty-foot easement along the canal for a potential north/south road as a condition for subdivision approval. The Village has had such a policy since 1973. The Village has demonstrated an overall and consistent policy of recognizing the need for a north/south road as a means of channeling future Village growth in an orderly manner. From 1973 to the present, the Village has approved nine subdivisions along the canal conditioned upon the dedication of similar easements to the Village.\nIn July 1983, the Corrales Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve appellant\u2019s subdivision upon the conditions that appellant publicly dedicate the sixty foot easement (with the option for a reversion to appellant of any land not required for the north/south road), and that the subdivision be permitted without full public access. Appellant initially agreed to dedicate the easement in exchange for subdivision approval. In July 1984, however, appellant notified the Planning and Zoning Commission that she would not dedicate the sixty-foot easement to the Village. Based upon appellant\u2019s refusal to grant the easement, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied her request for approval of the subdivision. The Village Council upheld the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Appellant does not challenge the above summarized findings of fact.\nAppellant challenges the trial court\u2019s conclusion of law that appellee, in conditioning approval of appellant\u2019s subdivision upon her dedicating a portion of her land to the Village, acted reasonably, and hence, validly exercised its police power.\nIn City of Albuquerque v. Chapman, 77 N.M. 86, 91, 419 P.2d 460, 464 (1966), we stated that in order to acquire the advantage of lot subdivision \u201cthe property owner must comply with reasonable conditions imposed by the city within its authority.\u201d Consistent with Chapman, we must decide whether it was reasonable for appellee to condition subdivision approval upon dedication of an easement to accomodate the potential north/south road.\nLand subdivision regulations of the Village permit requests for dedication of land in exchange for subdivision approval. The Village has demonstrated an overall and consistent policy of recognizing a need for a north/south road along the canal as a means of channeling future growth of the Village in an orderly manner. The Village was prepared to give appellant the option for a reversion of any land not required for the north/south road. Under these circumstances, it was a reasonable, and hence valid, exercise of police power for appellee to condition subdivision approval upon the dedication of an easement to accommodate the potential north/south road.\nAppellant also contends that the Village could not require dedication of the easement since the potential north/south road was not a \u201cplanned\u201d street, i.e., it was not expressly incorporated into the Village\u2019s master plan, \u201cEvery plat approved by the planning authority,\u201d however, \u201cis an amendment, addition or a detail of the master plan.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 3-19-12 (Repl. Pamp.1985). Since the Village approved nine subdivisions along the canal conditioned upon dedication of easements to the Village, the master plan was effectively amended to include the potential north/south road. Therefore, the potential north/south road was a planned street and appellant\u2019s argument fails.\nAppellant also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to rule on her claim that there existed full legal and public access to her property. We disagree. The trial court is vested with broad discretion to grant or refuse claims for declaratory relief. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 44-6-7. Since a ruling that there existed full legal and public access to appellant\u2019s property would not have terminated the controversy giving rise to this action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on the matter.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, Senior Justice, and STOWERS, WALTERS and RANSOM, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SCARBOROUGH, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Singer, Smith & Williams, Robert N. Singer, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Peter Everett IV, Ralph W. Steele, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "739 P.2d 972\nDorothy COLBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CORRALES, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 16263.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 17, 1987.\nSinger, Smith & Williams, Robert N. Singer, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nPeter Everett IV, Ralph W. Steele, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 143,
  "last_page_order": 145
}