Amrep Southwest, Inc. v. Sandoval Cnty. Assessor, 284 P.3d 1118

AMREP Southwest Inc. and Outer Rim Investments protested 2009 property tax valuations for about 19,541 Sandoval County parcels.
Board refused to consider AMREP’s 2009 comparable sales data, relying only on 2008 sales data.
AMREP presented property characteristics and 2009 sale analyses; adjustments were made for property characteristics but not for 2009 comparables.
Board grounded its decision on statutory/administrative Code language that valuation uses data as of January 1, 2009.
The district court affirmed the Board; AMREP appeals asserting Board misinterpreted law and denied due process by excluding 2009 sales.
Court must determine if Board’s interpretation of Section 7-38-7 and related regulations was lawful and whether due process was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board properly refused to consider 2009 comparables.	AMREP argues data after Jan. 1, 2009 are relevant.	Board adheres to Jan. 1 cut-off per statute/regulations.	Yes; Board’s January 1 data cut-off was reasonable and proper.
Whether the Board misinterpreted the governing statutes/regulations.	AMREP contends post-Jan. 1 sales must be considered under generally accepted techniques.	Board’s interpretation consistent with statutory/administrative provisions and longstanding practice.	No misinterpretation; Board’s reading is reasonable.
Whether AMREP’s due process rights were violated by excluding 2009 sales evidence.	Excluding 2009 data deprived AMREP of a fair hearing.	Board received the evidence but weighed it according to the cut-off rule.	Procedural due process not violated; not arbitrary or capricious.

In re Protest of Miller, 88 N.M. 492 (Ct. App. 1975) (protest boards must consider relevant evidence to avoid arbitrariness; distinguishable from this case)
Smith v. Bernalillo Cnty., 137 N.M. 280 (2005-NMSC-012) (plain language and long-standing agency constructions given weight)
Lobato v. State Env’t Dep’t, 267 P.3d 65 (2012-NMSC-002) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; use of construction rules)
Rio Grande Chapter of Sierra Club v. N.M. Mining Comm’n, 133 N.M. 97 (2003-NMSC-005) (scope of review; arbitrary or capricious standards)
Albuquerque Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth. v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 148 N.M. 21 (2010-NMSC-013) (deference to agency interpretations; procedural due process considerations)
In re Protest of Miller, 542 P.2d 1182 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975) (cited for due process/arbitrariness considerations (rev’d on other grounds))
PC Carter Co. v. Miller, 149 N.M. 660 (2011-NMCA-052) (statutory/administrative code construction principles)