Abeyta v. Lovato
33,371
N.M. Ct. App.May 1, 2017Background
- Petitioners (Mayordomo and Board of La Joya Acequia) sued landowner Louis Lovato for violating acequia rules by irrigating without permission, misappropriating water, and interfering with downstream users; they sought injunctive relief.
- After preliminary hearings and a full trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction forbidding Lovato from taking water without Mayordomo authorization and requiring written (fax) permission and immediate cessation on notice.
- Lovato appealed four points: (1) the district court improperly appointed commissioners via a January 2012 meeting/election; (2) the court failed to find Petitioners violated an injunction forbidding opening/irrigating “new lands”; (3) the court wrongly dismissed his counterclaim challenging assessments/illegal fees for non‑irrigated lands; and (4) the contempt finding against him lacked substantial evidence.
- The district court had held the October 2011 officers’ election void (not held on the statutory first Monday in October), leaving vacancies; it conducted a January meeting pursuant to statute to fill vacancies.
- The court found multiple instances where Lovato irrigated without permission and otherwise disobeyed the Mayordomo and court orders; it sanctioned him for contempt and awarded counsel fees as a civil penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lovato) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were commissioners appointed improperly (election/statutory compliance)? | Appointment/election violated Section 73-3-3 and the acequia bylaws (vote computation irregularities). | District court followed Section 73-3-1 vacancy procedure; majority of water‑rights owners appointed commissioners. | Affirmed: Section 73-3-1 governs vacancies; district court properly filled vacancies. |
| 2. Did Petitioners violate injunction prohibiting irrigation of “new lands”? | Petitioners approved irrigation of new lands after injunction; court erred by not finding a violation. | No adequate preservation or record support; argument unclear and unsupported. | Affirmed: Lovato failed to preserve/identify record evidence; no basis to find abuse of discretion. |
| 3. Did the court err in dismissing Lovato’s claim that assessments/fees for non‑irrigated lands were illegal? | He sought injunction and refund of assessments for non‑irrigated lands; trial court denied injunctive relief. | District court found adequate legal remedies existed and denied injunctive relief. | Affirmed: denial of injunction was within discretion; Lovato did not show inadequate legal remedy. |
| 4. Is the contempt finding supported by substantial evidence? | Contempt finding lacked substantial evidence—Lovato claims he was on schedule and relied on prior irrigator. | Evidence showed Lovato irrigated without Mayordomo authorization and violated court orders; prior contempt history. | Affirmed: contempt finding supported by substantial evidence; sanction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan Keegan Mortg. Co. v. Candelaria, 124 N.M. 405, 951 P.2d 1066 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Starko, Inc. v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep’t, 333 P.3d 947 (N.M. 2014) (plain‑meaning rule in statutory interpretation)
- In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (issues unsupported by authority will not be researched by appellate court)
- Aragon v. Brown, 134 N.M. 459, 78 P.3d 913 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (injunctive relief entrusted to trial court discretion)
- Benz v. Town Ctr. Land, LLC, 314 P.3d 688 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Allred v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp., 388 P.3d 998 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (viewing evidence for substantial‑evidence review)
- Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 309 P.3d 53 (N.M. 2013) (court will not review unclear arguments)
- Orion Tech. Res., LLC v. Los Alamos Nat’l Sec., LLC, 287 P.3d 967 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (injunctions as extraordinary remedies requiring lack of adequate legal remedy)