New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 3-7-15 (2026)
Duties of the municipal boundary commission; authority of
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
commission to annex; order is final; review by certiorari.
A. At the public hearing held for the purpose of determining if the territory proposed
to be annexed to the municipality shall be annexed to the municipality, the municipal
boundary commission shall determine if the territory proposed to be annexed:
(1) is contiguous to the municipality; and
(2) may be provided with municipal services by the municipality to which the
territory is proposed to be annexed.
B. If the municipal boundary commission determines that the conditions set forth in
this section are met, the commission shall order annexed to the municipality the territory
petitioned to be annexed to the municipality.
C. If the municipal boundary commission determines that only a portion of the
territory petitioned to be annexed meets the conditions set forth in this section, the
commission may order annexed to the municipality that portion of [the] territory which
meets the conditions set forth in this section.
D. If the municipal boundary commission determines that the conditions set forth in
this section are not met, the commission shall not order the annexation to the
municipality of the territory petitioned to be annexed.
E. Any order of the municipal boundary commission shall be final unless any owner
of land within the territory proposed to be annexed, within thirty days after the filing of
the final order in the office of the county clerk and the office of the municipal clerk,
obtains review of the order by the district court.
History: 1953 Comp., § 14-7-15, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300.
ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and it is
not part of the law.
Doctrine of prior jurisdiction. — The doctrine of prior jurisdiction, which provides that
the court first obtaining jurisdiction retains it as against a court of concurrent jurisdiction
in which a similar action is subsequently instituted, is applicable in administrative
proceedings, including annexation disputes. Therefore, the commission's decision-
making process was entitled to priority as against annexation ordinances adopted by
municipalities after an annexation petition had already been filed with the commission.
AMREP Southwest, Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 1991-NMCA-110, 113 N.M. 19, 821 P.2d
357, cert. denied sub. nom., Town of Bernalillo v. AMREP Sw., 113 N.M. 16, 820 P.2d
1330.
Commission's stay of annexation of a disputed area pending a judicial determination of
the commission's jurisdiction over that matter did not deprive the commission of its
priority. AMREP Southwest, Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 1991-NMCA-110, 113 N.M. 19,
821 P.2d 357, cert. denied sub. nom., Town of Bernalillo v. AMREP Sw., 113 N.M. 16,
820 P.2d 1330.
Authority of commission. — The boundary commission has the authority to annex
property over the objections of the municipality involved. City of Albuquerque v. State
Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 2002-NMCA-024, 131 N.M. 665, 41 P.3d 933, cert. denied,
131 N.M. 737, 42 P.3d 842.
Commission to act reasonably. — Although Subsection A does not specifically direct
the commission to act reasonably, it is an implicit requirement, because the element of
reason in its decision, or its absence, is a basis for court review. Mutz v. Municipal
Boundary Comm'n, 1984-NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12.
Reasonableness of objections. — The municipal boundary commission should only
exercise its authority to annex property over a municipality's objections based on a
finding that those objections were unreasonable under the circumstances. City of
Albuquerque v. State Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 2002-NMCA-024, 131 N.M. 665, 41 P.3d
933, cert. denied, 131 N.M. 737, 42 P.3d 842.
Contiguity required. — Each unit, block or lot of land to be annexed need not have a
common boundary with the municipality to satisfy requirement of contiguity in
Subsection A(1). Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1984-NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694,
688 P.2d 12.
The term "contiguous" in the annexation context requires a touching or close physical
proximity of the property. Cox v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1995-NMCA-120, 120
N.M. 703, 905 P.2d 741, cert. denied, 120 NM. 636, 904 P.2d 1061.
Satisfaction of requirements of Subsection A(2) within reasonable time. — The
requirement of Subsection A(2) that the annexed territory "may be provided with
municipal services" is satisfied if the municipality demonstrates the ability to provide
services to the territory to be annexed within a reasonable period of time. Mutz v. Mun.
Boundary Comm'n, 1984-NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12.
"To file" a paper is to place it in the official custody of the clerk. Town of Hurley v. New
Mexico Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1980-NMSC-083, 94 N.M. 606, 614 P.2d 18.
It is not necessary that officer endorse document upon its receipt in order to effect
the filing. Town of Hurley v. New Mexico Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 1980-NMSC-083, 94
N.M. 606, 614 P.2d 18.
Three purposes of the filing requirements contained in Subsection E of this section
and 3-7-16A NMSA 1978 are: (1) to provide public and accessible repositories in the
offices of county and municipal clerks of accurate copies of the official orders of the
commission; (2) to give constructive notice to the world of such orders; and (3) to fix the
commencement of the time within which an appeal to the district court from such orders
may be taken, namely 30 days, by the instrumentality of constructive notice to a party
desiring to appeal. Town of Hurley v. New Mexico Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 1980-
NMSC-083, 94 N.M. 606, 614 P.2d 18.
District court review of commission's decision is limited to questions of law -
whether the administrative agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously; whether
the commission's order was supported by substantial evidence; and whether the agency
acted within the scope of its authority. Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1984-
NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12.
When the commission followed its statutory mandate and determined that the area
proposed for annexation was contiguous and could be provided with municipal services
by the city, the district court was then limited to determine whether, based on the record,
this decision was fraudulent, arbitrary or capricious, supported by substantial evidence,
and within the scope of the commission's authority. Cox v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n,
1995-NMCA-120, 120 N.M. 703, 905 P.2d 741, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 636, 904 P.2d
1061.
Law reviews. — For note, "Annexation of Unincorporated Territory in New Mexico," see
6 Nat. Resources J. 83 (1966).Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Mutz v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 688 P.2d 12 (N.M. 1984).
Mutz v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 688 P.2d 12 (N.M. 1984). “Statutory Requirements The duties and authority of the Commission are set forth in Section 3-7-15. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A.”
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 905 P.2d 741 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “The Commission held hearings and determined that, with the exception of one residential area, the annexation met the requirements of Section 3-7-15. On certiorari review, the district court held that mere physical contiguity was insufficient and ordered the Commission to…”
Town of Hurley v. New Mexico Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 614 P.2d 18 (N.M. 1980). “Section 3-7-15(E), N.M.S.A. 1978 Any order of the municipal boundary commission shall be final unless any owner of land within the territory proposed to be annexed, within thirty days after the filing of the final order in the office of the county clerk and the office of the…”
Dugger v. City of Santa Fe, 834 P.2d 424 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 12 (1984); NMSA 1978, § 3-7-15 (Repl.Pamp.1987). However, annexations completed by a municipality under the petition .”
Amrep Sw., Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 821 P.2d 357 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). “We see no reason to carve out an exception to the doctrine of prior jurisdiction in this context. Finally, Bernalillo contends that there was not substantial evidence to support a determination by the boundary commission that the requirements of Section 3-7-15(A)(2) were…”
City of Albuquerque v. State, 2002 NMCA 024 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality’s objection, or to allow…”
City of Albuquerque v. MUN. BOUNDARY COM'N, 41 P.3d 933 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality's objection, or to allow…”
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 1998 NMCA 025 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “After the hearing, the Commission decided that most of the land proposed for annexation met the criteria contained in Section 3-7-15(A), in that it was contiguous to existing Sunland Park boundaries and Sun-land Park could provide municipal services to the new territory within a…”
Cox v. Mun. Boundary Com'n, 954 P.2d 1186 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “After the hearing, the Commission decided that most of the land proposed for annexation met the criteria contained in Section 3-7-15(A), in that it was contiguous to existing Sunland Park boundaries and Sunland Park could provide municipal services to the new territory within a…”
Provisional Gov't of Santa Teresa v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 429 P.3d 981 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “Section 3-7-15(A)(2). Third, under the petition method, the owners of a majority of the land in the subject territory submit a petition to the municipality, and the municipality either consents to or rejects the petition.”
Town of Edgewood v. State of New Mexico Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 2013 NMCA 047 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “{4} The Town sought review by way of certiorari to the district court, which reversed the Commission, holding that the Commission’s decision was not “in accordance with law.”
Daugherty v. City of Carlsbad, 905 P.2d 1120 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “Because the legislature established only the two requirements for annexation as set forth in Section 3-7-15, the Commission was only authorized to determine whether those two requirements were met.”
N.M. Stat. § 3-7-15(A): 8 cases
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 905 P.2d 741 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “The Commission held hearings and determined that, with the exception of one residential area, the annexation met the requirements of Section 3-7-15. On certiorari review, the district court held that mere physical contiguity was insufficient and ordered the Commission to…”
City of Albuquerque v. State, 2002 NMCA 024 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality’s objection, or to allow…”
Dugger v. City of Santa Fe, 834 P.2d 424 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 12 (1984); NMSA 1978, § 3-7-15 (Repl.Pamp.1987). However, annexations completed by a municipality under the petition .”
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 1998 NMCA 025 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “After the hearing, the Commission decided that most of the land proposed for annexation met the criteria contained in Section 3-7-15(A), in that it was contiguous to existing Sunland Park boundaries and Sun-land Park could provide municipal services to the new territory within a…”
City of Albuquerque v. MUN. BOUNDARY COM'N, 41 P.3d 933 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality's objection, or to allow…”
N.M. Stat. § 3-7-15(A)(2): 2 cases
Amrep Sw., Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 821 P.2d 357 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). “We see no reason to carve out an exception to the doctrine of prior jurisdiction in this context. Finally, Bernalillo contends that there was not substantial evidence to support a determination by the boundary commission that the requirements of Section 3-7-15(A)(2) were…”
Provisional Gov't of Santa Teresa v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 429 P.3d 981 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “Section 3-7-15(A)(2). Third, under the petition method, the owners of a majority of the land in the subject territory submit a petition to the municipality, and the municipality either consents to or rejects the petition.”
N.M. Stat. § 3-7-15(B): 3 cases
Amrep Sw., Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 821 P.2d 357 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). “We see no reason to carve out an exception to the doctrine of prior jurisdiction in this context. Finally, Bernalillo contends that there was not substantial evidence to support a determination by the boundary commission that the requirements of Section 3-7-15(A)(2) were…”
City of Albuquerque v. State, 2002 NMCA 024 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality’s objection, or to allow…”
City of Albuquerque v. MUN. BOUNDARY COM'N, 41 P.3d 933 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). “2d 1205, 1209 (1996), we do not think this is a correct interpretation of Section 3-7-15. {12} The City argues that the legislature could not have intended to give landowners the power to force a municipality to annex property despite the municipality's objection, or to allow…”
N.M. Stat. § 3-7-15(E): 6 cases
Mutz v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 688 P.2d 12 (N.M. 1984). “Statutory Requirements The duties and authority of the Commission are set forth in Section 3-7-15. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A.”
Town of Hurley v. New Mexico Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 614 P.2d 18 (N.M. 1980). “Section 3-7-15(E), N.M.S.A. 1978 Any order of the municipal boundary commission shall be final unless any owner of land within the territory proposed to be annexed, within thirty days after the filing of the final order in the office of the county clerk and the office of the…”
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 905 P.2d 741 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “The Commission held hearings and determined that, with the exception of one residential area, the annexation met the requirements of Section 3-7-15. On certiorari review, the district court held that mere physical contiguity was insufficient and ordered the Commission to…”
Dugger v. City of Santa Fe, 834 P.2d 424 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). “2d 12 (1984); NMSA 1978, § 3-7-15 (Repl.Pamp.1987). However, annexations completed by a municipality under the petition .”
Mark D. v. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 1998 NMCA 025 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “After the hearing, the Commission decided that most of the land proposed for annexation met the criteria contained in Section 3-7-15(A), in that it was contiguous to existing Sunland Park boundaries and Sun-land Park could provide municipal services to the new territory within a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.