Last edited Tue Jan 23, 2018, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)
In 1995 a rich land owner blocked off access to the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area that had been used by landowners since at least the 40's with the original purpose to be watering their livestock. This was a very rural area because it is in the river floodplain. Over the years people started moving in to build houses on the available lands. People then started to use this access of a path of maybe a 100 yards from a road ending to the diversion channels as a recreational tool for walking and bike riding.
In 1995 the absent landowner wanted to sell the property (plus some other attached land) and was told by the surveyor that there was an established trail and that the New Mexico constitution allows for prescriptive easement that have been used that way for over 10 years to remain for the users. He was told to put up a fence to establish his ownership and stop users of the trail.
The owners of houses and lands in the immediate area that butted up against the open space land are what you could easily call "rich" including the vacant land that was in question now. That parcel was owned by a lawyer named Jonathan Sutin. The neighborhood went to discuss with him about having the trail restored for the use of everyone and that would he sell a small sliver for that purpose. He basically said- 1-Buy all the property ( about 5 acres at premium price, 2- find a buyer that would do that, 3- sue him.
The neighborhood took on the task of suing him for access. We had a pro-bono lawyer ( who had lived next door to these "rich" people ( Sutin's supporters) and went about the effort. We are talking hundreds of supporters (edited to add) for keeping access..
We were trying to establish a public prescriptive easement, not just a private one. There were many neighborhood meetings and fundraisers. Lots of support. It took a long time and ultimately we lost the fight. Process was about 7 years- lost finally in 2002.
Here are a couple of interesting points. It went to NM Supreme Court for final determination. The defendant (J. Sutin) was elected to the NM Court of Appeals during this time. Lost in local court but we went on. It bypassed the Appeals court.
The NM Supreme court was one of heavily conservative bent. It failed because there had been one instance where one of the plaintiffs had said that they had waved to one of the "rich" neighbors, hence they had given permission to use the path ( this was weird in it's reasoning because the path was not on their property). So be it. Of note about "rich" people: at one time in the neighborhood discussion with them one of them claimed that we ( the people who wanted a path) were just "wanna be's" and that we were jealous of their wealth- no joke- they said something like that.
At one time in the negotiations they proposed a restrictive access to just the plaintiffs and with a timeline that would eventually end. The neighborhood said- no way. This should be a public access and they would not take that deal.
Quite a process. It revealed the thoughts and just simply the exclusivity that "rich" people adhere to. But it also showed the determination and community consideration of others that went beyond their own specific benefit. Humbling indeed.
The NM Supreme Court ruling (rather detailed) is at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-supreme-court/1253882.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
