- The SAEPOA board and its supporters claim that we do not own our roads, but rather they are property of someone else, namely they claim that the roads are property of the Town, and thus the Town could pay for their maintenance on their behalf (not likely according to town commissioner responsible for road management).
- A group of residents, including Jeff Berg, claim that our roads belong to us, the lot owners in Sandia Airpark through our representative organization, SAEPOA. They seek “quiet title”, where a judge clarifies the ownership. Because the Board has involved many in its attempt to change ownership, the lawsuit is against SAEPOA (because of the Board’s actions), the Town (because they were the attempted recipient of the roads, during a time when Board member Jerry Powers was also a town commissioner), and Ken White (a former lot owner, and son of the developer from 30 years ago, who suddenly and curiously in 2023 claimed to have given his rights of “ownership” of our roads to the Town).
What follows is my quick summary of the arguments Deborah and I saw from a review of public documents regarding the case. We are not parties to the case, and so we only have limited visibility. There may be portions we missed from depositions or outside documents not easily available from the county clerk.
The Plaintiffs’ Argument
The plaintiffs (your concerned neighbors) point to numerous documents that make ownership clear:
- 1979 Subdivision Plat for our developement (called “Rainbow Hill” at the time): “Access to Private Property Gated”
- 1986 Plat of Sandia Airpark (Phase I): “All roads shown hereon will be maintained by the Homeowners Association”
- 1987 Plat of Sandia Airpark (2X for Phase II & Phase III): “All roads shown hereon will be maintained by the Homeowners Association”
- 1993: Our founding documents defined our common areas to include “all roads in the residential area, including the north/south portion of Rainbow Road (from the runway property boundary to the Airpark entrance)”
- 1994 A Santa Fe Land Use Associate Planner stated: ” The roads/taxiways within the Sandia Airpar Estates subdivision located in Edgewood, Santa Fe County New Mexico, are owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association of the Subdivision”
- 1997 Master Plan Amendment for property records: “All roads/taxiways shown hereon are and will be maintined by the Homeowners Association”
- 1998 Plat for “Vacation of Easement” granted title (ownership) for portions of Rainbow Road to the commercial owners to the West of Sandia Airpark residential areas.
- 2013 Plat of Copage’s area in the commercial area includes a description of a 60′ right-of-way “maintained by Sandia Airpark”
Finally, over the history of the Airpark, no corporate action (such as a proper [or even improper] vote) was taken to give away our property rights regarding the roads.
The Board’s Counter Argument
The core of the Board’s argument comes from a single statement on the 1986 plat:
The property shown is surveyed, platted and subdivided and comprises Lots 1 through 35 inclusive, together with the streets and thoroughfares of Sandia Airpark Estates East, with the free consent of and in accordance with the wishes and desires of the undersigned owners and proprietors thereof: to the public forever [empasis added – by the Board’s attorney], said owners do hereby dedicate the easements shown on this plat, including the rights of ingress and egress and the right to trim interfering trees. This subdivision lies within the planning and platting jurisdiction of the County of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Note that the Board and it’s allies, attorneys, etc. are quick to point out the words “public forever”, but omit to say WHAT is “dedicated” to the public forever, namely what was given was an EASEMENT, not ownership!
Similar words are also quoted by the Board’s attorneys in the PLAT OF SURVEY.
The streets and thoroughfares within Sandia Airpark Estates East properties are dedicated to the use of the public forever by the subdivision plat field for Santa Fe County…
Again, the attorneys seem to be claiming the USE is equivalent to ownership — it is not.
Well, that’s about it, except for the complications mentioned below.
Complications
Given how thin the Board’s argument is, it’s not surprising that their legal approach is to complicate the matter. They have argued the following, much of which has already failed (been dismissed or not responded to by the judge).
Lack of valid reasons to sue: The Board’s attorneys claim that the plaintiffs “lack standing”, that they are “not harmed” if the Town takes ownership, and even that they are essentially not allowed to sue because they are members of the Association!
Statute of Limitations: The Board’s attorneys argue that the plaintiffs can’t sue because of a 3-year statute of limitations, claiming that the 3 years would apply to the 1986 plat, not the current actions of the Board! (A case could be made, in fact, that the 3-year statute of limitations means that the roads are indeed property of SAEPOA. After all here we are with a board arguing exactly 40 years after-the-fact (!) that a phrase in the plat transfers ownership–even though that phrase doesn’t really say it.)
Ownership vs Maintenance: The Board claims that documents specifying our obligation to maintain the roads does not mean that the Town does not own them. While true, there is no clear evidence that the Town does indeed own the roads.
The Town polices our streets: Indeed, and the Town polices the Walmart parking lot, but it does not make the parking lot Town property.
The Town has a responsibility for safety: While true, it does not confer ownership. The town has a responsibility to stop crime on your front lawn as well.
Regular stream of motions to dismiss or summary judgment against the plaintiffs: Our Board is using your money (SAEPOA funds) for quite a bit of legal process, several motions for dismissal of the suit and for summary judgment — all dismissed by the judge.
Depositions: The most recent documentation regards a motion for discovery that began with the plaintiffs complaining that, even though they’ve received voluminous documentation, that they have not recieved the documents they sought from our Board (sound familiar?). This resulted in a motion to compel depositions from the Board. The Board sought depositions, then from several plaintiffs. It’s clear that this is a very expensive and ongoing process — it’s costing all of us a lot. Those of us outside the process have no idea what has been said or done with the depositions.
The deed from Ken White: I’m a bit unclear on this one, but from the best I can tell, Ken White, heir to the original developer of Sandia Airpark (Walter White, who has not owned the Airpark for over 30 years) filed a deed in 2023 claiming that IF he owned our roads, that he has now given them to the Town. It is interesting timing, given that this is when our key Board member, while he was commissioner, attempted to take the roads and to pave Rainbow Road at Town expense. We know of no clear documentation of Ken White’s ownership of our roads.
What SHOULD Happen
Your board should serve you, the resident. The road would be simple and not costly. Rather than attempting to tranfer our roads to the Town without our consent, the Board should invite the members to meetings to discuss (IN PERSON!). We should weigh whether we wish to deed our roads to the Town and we should find out if the Town is willing to accept them. Should there be a clear will to do so, we should take a proper written 2/3 majority vote for the action.
Had our board respected our rights, it would have saved a lot of pain and expense for the Association as well as the plaintiffs. The Board could resolve this immediately if it wished.
Essentially, we are victims of behind-the-scenes political action in which we, the residents, were not invited on issues of great consequence. The purpose of the suit by our neighbors is to protect us from losing our rights.
Leave a Reply