{ "id": 2837167, "name": "George R. HAWTHORNE and Donelle C. Hawthorne, Petitioners-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Hawthorne v. City of Santa Fe", "decision_date": "1975-06-25", "docket_number": "No. 10028", "first_page": "123", "last_page": "125", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 N.M. 123" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "537 P.2d 1385" } ], "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": "64 N.M. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5344848 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/64/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2830160 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0469-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 374, "char_count": 5491, "ocr_confidence": 0.814, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2717183890719896e-07, "percentile": 0.6149381682098068 }, "sha256": "27def257b888052a27e6e90469eb681da8246b580d0f5aee9d6b49b12506974a", "simhash": "1:215b4526212b1d6f", "word_count": 883 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "OMAN and MONTOYA, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "George R. HAWTHORNE and Donelle C. Hawthorne, Petitioners-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nMcMANUS, Chief Justice.\nThis suit was brought in the District Court of Santa Fe County under a special statutory proceeding to review by writ of certiorari the action of the respondent as Municipal Zoning Authority. After trial by the court, a judgment denying the requested relief was entered. The petitioners Hawthorne, two of the four original petitioners, appeal.\nIn 1962, the City of Santa Fe passed Ordinance No. 1962-19, \u00a7 28-13.2 [Santa Fe, N.M., Code \u00a7 36-247 (1973)], which prohibited a change in a zoning classification to a commercial or industrial category when the area involved is less than five acres, and further prohibited the creation of a separate commercial or industrial district of less than five acres by amendment to the ordinance. The respondent, a defendant and cross-appellant (City), pursuant to the above, rezoned a certain tract of land in the City of Santa Fe from residential use to a use that would allow a branch banking operation. The area involved is less than five acres. The petitioners-appellants, Hawthorne, own real estate which is within 100 feet of the rezoned property. The City held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment, giving prior notice by general newspaper circulation in the City and County of Santa Fe. Direct mail notice was mailed to all adjoining property owners within 100 feet except to one Fred Martinez. The parties have stipulated that Martinez had actual notice of the public hearing.\nAfter a full hearing, the court, having received evidence, read briefs and heard arguments, entered a memorandum decision, followed by findings of fact and conclusions of law. In effect, the court\u2019s decision held that Hawthorne was not a \u201cperson aggrieved\u201d and that there were no parties in court with \u201cstanding\u201d and consequently dismissed Hawthorne\u2019s complaint. While not basing the decision on conclusion of law No. 3, the court did have this to say in that conclusion:\n\u201cExcept for the conclusion that Petitioners lack standing to prosecute this action as concluded in Conclusion of Law number 2 above, this action should be decided in petitioners\u2019 favor since failure to mail a notice to Fred Martinez, a landowner within 100 feet of the property proposed to be rezoned as required by Section 14-20-4 N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp, is fatal .to validity of Ordinance 1973-29.\u201d\nAppellants rely on three points as basis of their appeal. The first is as follows:\n\u201cThe petitioners have standing to sue as \u2018persons aggrieved\u2019 under \u00a7 14-20-7 N.M.S.A., 1953.\u201d\nThe law of standing in New Mexico has now been set out in De Vargas Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Campbell, 87 N.M. 469, 535 P.2d 1320 (1975). In that case we construed \u00a7 48-15-133, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 7, Supp.1972), the part of the Savings and Loan Act granting a right of appeal from administrative decisions to the district court to \u201cany association or person aggrieved and directly affected.\u201d We held that \u201cto attain standing in a suit arguing the unlawfulness of governmental action, the complainant must allege that he is injured in fact or is imminently threatened with injury, economically or otherwise.\u201d De Vargas, supra. Therefore, the Hawthornes have standing.\nAppellants\u2019 second point asserts:\n\u201cThe respondent\u2019s failure to give notice in strict compliance with \u00a7 14-20-4 N.M.S.A., 1953, invalidated Ordinance No. 1973-29.\u201d\nIn answering point 2, the appellees assert a cross-appeal alleging that it was error for the district court to reach the merits, and further alleging that Ordinance 1973\u2014 29 was not invalidated by reason of a minor and technical defect in the notice of hearing given pursuant to \u00a7 14-20-4, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, 1968).\nNotice, pursuant to \u00a7 14-20-4, supra, was given the appellants, and they appeared at the hearing before the zoning authorities without making procedural objections. An objection to the failure to mail a notice of the public hearing to Fred Martinez was made at the trial in the district court. However, as above shown, Martinez was fully aware of the proposed zone changes. Obviously, the' reason for such notice is to apprise interested parties of the hearing so that they may attend and state their views on the proposed zoning amendment, pro or con. It is our view that Martinez, having had knowledge of the hearing, was properly notified and this constitutes substantial compliance with the statute in question. The purpose of the statute has been met and that is all that is required in this instance. See City of Alamogordo v. McGee, 64 N.M. 253, 327 P.2d 321 (1958).\nThe third and last point argued in the trial court was:\n\u201cRespondent\u2019s enactment of Ordinance No. 1973-29 was an illegal act because prohibited by section 28-13.2 of respondent\u2019s General Zoning Ordinance No. 1962-19.\u201d\nWe hold that the Municipal Zoning Authority had no power to enact an ordinance binding upon subsequent zoning commissions.\nThe judgment of the trial court in this cause will be affirmed but for different reasons, as set out herein.\nIt is so ordered.\nOMAN and MONTOYA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McMANUS, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jasper & Durkovich, John Jasper, Santa Fe, for petitioners-appellants and cross-ap-pellees.", "Jones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, Susan P. Graber, Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee and cross-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "537 P.2d 1385\nGeorge R. HAWTHORNE and Donelle C. Hawthorne, Petitioners-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.\nNo. 10028.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 25, 1975.\nJasper & Durkovich, John Jasper, Santa Fe, for petitioners-appellants and cross-ap-pellees.\nJones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, Susan P. Graber, Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee and cross-appellant." }, "file_name": "0123-01", "first_page_order": 153, "last_page_order": 155 }