A. The petition shall:
(1) describe the territory proposed to be annexed;
(2) be signed by:
(a) the mayor and clerk of the municipality; or
(b) a majority of the landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed; and
(3) be accompanied by a map of the territory proposed to be annexed which shall show:
(a) the external boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed;
(b) any federal, state or county highways which may exist in the territory proposed to be annexed; and
(c) the relationship of the territory proposed to be annexed to the existing boundary of the municipality.
B. The petition shall be filed with the department of finance and administration.
History: 1953 Comp., § 14-7-13, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1977, ch. 247, § 138; 1983, ch. 296, § 9.
Commission may determine the sufficiency of petitions. — In addition to considering the issues of contiguity and the provision of municipal services, the boundary commission has the power to determine the statutory sufficiency of a petition and may make that determination at any time in the proceedings. Town of Edgewood v. N.M. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 2013-NMCA-047, 299 P.3d 451, cert. quashed, 2013-NMCERT-009.
Where petitioner's petition failed to establish ownership of roads contained in and bordering the territory petitioner sought to annex and failed to account for the ownership and consequences of ownership of roads owned by government entities in and bordering the territory, the boundary commission properly denied the annexation because the commission had the power to evaluate the petition's compliance with statutory requirements for ownership and documentation of roads. Town of Edgewood v. N.M. Mun. Boundary Comm'n, 2013-NMCA-047, 299 P.3d 451, cert. quashed, 2013-NMCERT-009.
Minor errors in description of territory immaterial. — That some of the area to be annexed was described in the petition as "lots" instead of "blocks" is immaterial since the descriptions, in context, were substantially and sufficiently correct to put all interested parties on notice of the area sought to be annexed. Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm'n, 1984-NMSC-070, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.