258 P.3d 1181
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Acequia Association voting is governed by bylaws; 1981 bylaws used voting by water rights, plaintiff owned large ditch and water rights.
- 1982 stipulated judgment provided voting rights to plaintiff based on ditch or water rights, whichever larger.
- 1989 bylaws continued voting by water rights; 1999 transfer reduced plaintiff's water rights but bylaws were not adjusted.
- 2002 bylaws changed to reflect ditch-right voting in an effort to comply with the 1982 judgment; conducted December 3, 2007 election accordingly.
- January 4, 2008 election used a hybrid method (ditch vs water rights) leading to further contest; district court invalidated both elections and the 1982 judgment as unlawful, ordering a new election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voting can be based on ditch rights due to 1982 judgment and related documents | Bounds argues ditch rights may govern voting under 73-2-14 and Wilson | The district court and defendants contend only statutory alternatives apply, disallowing hybrid methods | 1982 judgment invalid; voting must be one of the two statutory alternatives. |
| Whether the 1982 stipulated judgment is binding on Association and its members | Bounds asserts the judgment binds both Association and members | Association and members are not in privity; judgment cannot bind members | Res judicata does not apply; judgment not binding on individual members. |
| Whether the 1982 stipulated judgment is subject to collateral attack | Plaintiff contends collateral attack is improper | Consent judgment may be collaterally attacked by parties in privity | Collateral attack allowed against the 1982 judgment as to its effect on member voting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmberg v. Bradford, 56 N.M. 401, 244 P.2d 785 (1952) (two methods of acquiring a property right in a community ditch; provides voting context separate from ownership rights)
- Olson v. H & B Properties, Inc., 118 N.M. 495, 882 P.2d 536 (1994) (ditch rights vs water rights distinction; easement and ownership rights in ditch)
- Wilson v. Denver, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153 (1998-NMSC-016) (recognizes three ditch interests and that voting may be based on either ditch rights, water rights, or water users)
- Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd., 140 P.3d 498 (2006) (statutory language as disjunctive; not read to support hybrid or inserted meanings)