Valenzuela v. NM Taxation and Revenue Dep't, 35,313

Plaintiffs (Francisco and Rachel Valenzuela) sued to set aside a tax-sale conveyance, alleging the State failed to give statutorily required notice of tax delinquency and sale.
Plaintiffs later added Allan and Sherry Snyder, who purchased the property at the tax sale, alleging the purchase price was unconscionably low; partial summary judgment against the Snyders was reversed on appeal (2014-NMCA-061) as inadequate price is not a basis to void a tax sale.
On remand Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on lack-of-notice under § 7-38-66; before resolution the district court dismissed the Snyders with prejudice based on the prior mandate.
The district court then found the State failed to give required notice and entered judgment purporting to set aside the tax sale (affecting the Snyders’ claimed title) after the Snyders had already been dismissed.
The Snyders appealed; Plaintiffs argued the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the Snyders were dismissed before the judgment and, alternatively, asserted the Snyders never had any interest in the property.
The Court of Appeals concluded the Snyders were not aggrieved because they were not parties when the judgment was entered and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court judgment invalidating a tax sale can be enforced against purchasers who were dismissed from the suit before judgment	Valenzuela: tax sale without proper notice is void ab initio, so relief can reach purchasers	Snyders: (implicit) they were not bound because they were dismissed; the judgment cannot affect them	Held: Purchasers dismissed before judgment are not bound or "aggrieved"; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether lack of cited authority supports Plaintiffs’ attempt to bind nonparties	Valenzuela: cites precedent holding tax sales void for faulty notice to argue relief should affect purchasers	Snyders: argue Plaintiffs should pursue damages from State; nonparties not bound	Held: Plaintiffs cited no case where a tax deed was declared void without joining the putative titleholder; absent parties are not bound by judgment
Whether appellate court should provide advisory guidance on plaintiffs' remaining remedies	Valenzuela: requested dismissal but argued Snyders never held interest	Snyders: asked court to state Plaintiffs’ remaining remedy is money damages from the State	Held: Court declined to issue advisory opinion about unpled future remedies; not appropriate on appeal

Chavez v. Derek J. Sharvielle, M.D., P.A., 106 N.M. 793, 750 P.2d 1119 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (tax sale without proper notice can be void)
Cochrell v. Mitchell, 134 N.M. 180, 75 P.3d 396 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (quiet title context addressing notice-defective tax sales)
Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103, 255 P.2d 311 (N.M. 1953) (tax sale purchaser was party in suit declaring sale void)
Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 80 N.M. 517, 458 P.2d 592 (N.M. 1969) (indispensable parties are those whose interests will necessarily be affected)
Insure New Mexico, LLC v. McGonigle, 128 N.M. 611, 995 P.2d 1053 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate courts should not render advisory opinions)
In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (absence of cited authority may be treated as absence of supporting authority)