Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 482 P.3d 1261

In 2005 Albuquerque adopted impact-fee ordinances (the 2005 Ordinance) allowing developers to satisfy fees by conveying improvements or property in exchange for impact-fee credits; excess credits could be transferred or reimbursed and originally expired seven years after issuance.
The City conveyed over $2.3 million in excess credits to developers between 2007–2013; Premier acquired a large portion of those credits and continued to sell some credits for value.
In 2012 the City replaced the 2005 Ordinance with a new ordinance (the 2012 Ordinance) that lowered impact-fee rates (with a multi-year phase-in), expanded service areas, and extended the redemption window for legacy credits from seven years to fifteen years while preserving transfer and reimbursement rights.
Premier alleged the lower fees reduced demand and materially decreased the market value of its excess credits and sued the City for a regulatory taking under the New Mexico Constitution and for contract-based relief (including an illusory-promise theory), among other claims.
The district court dismissed Premier’s first amended complaint under Rule 1-012(B)(6); Premier appealed only its takings and illusory-promise claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Regulatory taking under N.M. Const. art. II, § 20	Premier: the 2012 Ordinance’s reduction of impact-fee rates substantially devalued its excess credits and thus effected a regulatory taking (relies on federal Penn Central factors).	City: Premier has no property right to a favorable market or fixed fee schedules; credits retain use/transfer/reimbursement rights; value decline alone is insufficient under New Mexico takings law.	Affirmed dismissal: Premier failed to allege a protected right to static market conditions and did not plead loss of all or substantially all beneficial use required by New Mexico precedent.
Illusory-promise / third-party beneficiary contract claim	Premier: the underlying agreements and the 2005 Ordinance made credits freely assignable, so Premier is an intended third-party beneficiary and can enforce against the City; the City’s reserved right to change fees rendered promises illusory.	City: Premier was not in privity and not an intended third-party beneficiary; contracts and settlement do not promise fixed fee rates; City retained right to change rates.	Affirmed dismissal: Premier failed to plead intended third-party beneficiary status or identify contractual provisions showing the parties intended to benefit Premier; claim also fails on the merits.

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (federal ad hoc factors for regulatory takings cited by plaintiff but not adopted as controlling for New Mexico takings analysis)
Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 646 P.2d 565 (N.M. 1982) (articulates New Mexico two‑part regulatory‑takings test: reasonable relation to purpose and not depriving owner of all/substantially all beneficial use)
Estate & Heirs of Sanchez v. County of Bernalillo, 902 P.2d 550 (N.M. 1995) (explains property as bundle of rights and applies Temple Baptist Church takings test)
Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez, 670 P.2d 953 (N.M. 1983) (economic loss in market value insufficient where licensee retains transfer/use rights)
Moongate Water Co. v. City of Las Cruces, 302 P.3d 405 (N.M. 2013) (New Mexico takings jurisprudence recognizing regulatory‑takings framework)
Bartlett v. Cameron, 316 P.3d 889 (N.M. 2014) (look to state law to define scope of property rights protected by constitution)
Santa Fe Pacific Trust, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 335 P.3d 232 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (discussed regarding applicability limits of Penn Central and differing contexts for takings claims)