Background

• Lakeside Veterans Club, Inc. was formed in 1957 to own real property and operate a service club in Carlsbad, NM, with eligibility limited to members in good standing of VFW 3277 or DAV 13 (DAV chapter).
• VFW 3277 and DAV 13 owned Plum Lane Property jointly; Lakeside was created to obscure joint ownership and later reconveyed the property to Lakeside.
• In 2007, both VFW 3227 (likely a numbering discrepancy with 3277) and DAV 13 were suspended by their state organizations for the joint ownership arrangement, affecting Lakeside's membership structure.
• Plaintiffs Semrau and Diggs, former members in good standing with DAV 13, filed a liquidation action under Section 53-8-55(A)(1) and 53-8-56 in December 2007 seeking dissolution and asset liquidation.
• The district court found Lakeside had no members after the suspensions and allowed liquidation to proceed under 53-8-55(A)(1)(e), despite Lakeside’s argument that some form of membership persisted.
• On appeal, Lakeside challenged standing and jurisdiction, arguing the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs had no standing to initiate liquidation.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• ACLU of N.M. v. City of Albuquerque, 144 N.M. 471 (N.M. Supreme Court 2008) (standing may be jurisdictional when statute creates a cause of action)
• Gunaji v. Macias, 130 N.M. 734 (N.M. Supreme Court 2001) (standing as a jurisdictional prerequisite may be raised at any stage)
• Alvarez v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 126 N.M. 490 (N.M. Court of Appeals 1999) (standing analysis applies to statutory claims)
• Armijo v. Save `N Gain, 771 P.2d 989 (N.M. Court of Appeals 1989) (jurisdictional considerations in standing analysis)