Chavez v. Derek J. Sharvelle, M.D., P.A

5 Citing cases

  1. Hoffman v. State, Taxation Rev. Dept

    117 N.M. 263 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    In support of her constitutional argument, Hoffman relies on both federal and state constitutional law that provides that a delinquent taxpayer is entitled to " '[n]otice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice' " and that such notice " 'is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding which will adversely affect the liberty or property interests of any party, whether unlettered or well versed in commercial practice, if its name and address are reasonably ascertainable.' " Chavez v. Sharvelle, 106 N.M. 793, 796, 750 P.2d 1119, 1122 (Ct.App.) (quoting Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983)), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 16, 751 P.2d 700 (1988). Although the Department contends that the legislature intended to apply Section 7-38-70(C) even where the State failed to comply with the notice requirements of Section 7-38-66 and federal and state constitutional due process requirements, we do not find the Department's argument persuasive.

  2. Valenzuela v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't

    No. 35,313 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2017)

    {6} In their memorandum, Plaintiffs cite to multiple precedents for the proposition that a tax sale conducted without proper notice is void from the outset. [MIO 2-3] That rule was applied in the cases of Chavez v. Derek J. Sharvielle, M.D., P.A., 1988-NMCA-005, 106 N.M. 793, 750 P.2d 1119; Cochrell v. Mitchell, 2003-NMCA-094, 134 N.M. 180, 75 P.3d 396; and Pratt v. Parker, 1953-NMSC-005, 57 N.M. 103, 255 P.2d 311, all of which are relied upon by Plaintiffs. But the validity of a tax sale is not the issue raised by Plaintiffs' notice. Instead, the issue before this Court is whether the district court's decision that the tax sale was invalid can be enforced against the Snyders despite their absence from the lawsuit in which that question was answered.

  3. Colfax County v. Angel Fire Corp.

    115 N.M. 146 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    Of critical import in this regard, we note that the current Property Tax Code does not contain a right of redemption, or a right of repurchase for owners of real property sold at a tax sale. See Chavez v. Derek J. Sharvell, M.D., P.A., 106 N.M. 793, 750 P.2d 1119 (Ct.App. 1988) (quoting Cano v. Lovato, 105 N.M. 522, 734 P.2d 762 (Ct.App. 1986)) (the new Property Tax Code eliminated the right of redemption and the right of repurchase). Accordingly, we do not believe it the intent of the legislature to allow county treasurers to initiate proceedings against property owners within as little as thirty days after the date which the taxes are due and thereby risk losing their property before the three-year waiting period has lapsed.

  4. Patric v. Rice

    112 N.M. 285 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the return of mailed notice did not mean that the correct address was not reasonably ascertainable and voiding the tax sale in which the property at issue was sold

    When the division holds a tax sale, that is a taking of property by the government, the notice of such taking must comply with minimum due process standards under the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. Chavez v. Sharvelle, 106 N.M. 793, 750 P.2d 1119 (Ct.App. 1988); see also Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983). Defendants maintain that the division's efforts at locating plaintiffs met constitutional as well as statutory requirements.

  5. Fulton v. Cornelius

    107 N.M. 362 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 7 times

    The validity of a tax sale under New Mexico law is dependent upon compliance by tax officials with both statutory and constitutional due process requirements. See Chavez v. Sharvelle, 106 N.M. 793, 750 P.2d 1119 (Ct.App. 1988). See also Buescher v. Jaquez, 101 N.M. 2, 677 P.2d 615 (1983), limited by Tabet v. Campbell, 101 N.M. 334, 681 P.2d 1111 (1984); State ex rel. Klineline v. Blackhurst, 106 N.M. 732, 749 P.2d 1111 (1988); Cano v. Lovato, 105 N.M. 522, 734 P.2d 762 (Ct.App. 1986).