Court proposes to overturn trash suit ruling

By Todd Wildermuth
for The Raton Range

The Raton Range/STPNS

March 06, 2008

RATON, New Mexico (STPNS) -- The state Court of Appeals is proposing to revive a lawsuit brought by the Village of Angel Fire against Colfax County, seeking to force the county to pay what the village believes is owed it under a trash-collection service contract the two governments signed seven years ago.

The appellate court's proposed ruling, filed Feb. 14, if made final, would send the case back to District Court, where the village could again pursue the payment of what would currently be $150,000 it claims the county owes it.

In November, District Judge Eugenio Mathis of Las Vegas agreed with the county that the lawsuit was filed too late when it came to the legal timeframe for such complaints. According to the judge, state law requires a legal action seeking monetary damages such as this to be filed within two years of when the money the village claims it is owed began to accrue. That date, the judge determined, to likely be April 16, 2004, but no later than July 16, 2004, meaning the case would have had to have been filed by July 2006. The lawsuit was filed in April 2007.

The proposed ruling from the appellate court, written by Judge A. Joseph Alarid, finds that representations made by the county to the village gave village officials reason to believe the county would eventually pay, even if its payments were late. As such, the proposed ruling says, the two-year statute of limitations should be delayed in being applied - until April 15, 2005, which is one year after the most recent payment made by the county, according to the lawsuit.

"A defendant will be equitably stopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when its conduct prevented the plaintiff from realizing that its cause of action had accrued," the proposed ruling says, citing findings of past court cases.

The proposed ruling allows 20 days for attorneys for the village and county to submit memoranda to the court giving reason why the proposed ruling should or should not be made into a final decision by the court. The 20 days will expire Wednesday.

The village argued that the county's missing payments did not become actionable for collection until "it became reasonable for the Village to distrust the representatives and promises of the County that payment would be made." The county, according to the village, "admitted" the debt even after 2004, "convincing the Village" that the county was "merely reconfiguring its funds to make the payment owed." The village claimed that at no time did the county inform the village that the county refused to pay.

The Court of Appeals' proposed ruling says the district judge erred in dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations. The appellate judge found that "greater factual development was necessary" before deciding if the county should be allowed to assert a defense based on that law. The proposed ruling also says that even if the county can use such a defense, it can only be used for payments due prior to April 10, 2005, which is two years before when the village filed its suit. The appellate court proposes to allow the village to seek to collect any money it claims came due from the county since the date its suit was filed.

Using the terms of the trash-service agreement between the village and the county, and considering the proposed ruling of the appellate court, the total amount that the village could now seek if the suit returns to District Court is $150,000.

The village and county entered into the trash-service Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in March 2001 to have the village provide trash service to certain county areas outside the village's municipal limits. The suit said the county made semi-annual $25,000 payments to the village - due each April 15 and July 15, as specified in the JPA - through April 15, 2004, and did not make a payment since then. In alleging breach of contract, the suit claimed the JPA remains in effect and the village "continues to perform its obligations undertaken pursuant thereof." The JPA itself says it will remain in effect "from year to year" unless terminated by one of the parties giving a 30-day written notice to the other.

The county claims the JPA is void because it was never approved by the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). State law requires that any JPAs between public agencies be approved by the DFA cabinet secretary.

© 2008 The Raton Range Raton, New Mexico. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from STPNS.

Search this newspaper's archives at: The Raton Range Archives