Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 39 - Judgments, Costs, Appeals - cited by 2,983 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison - cited by 333 documents
Decision Content
BOWEN V. PYLE
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
DOUGLAS G. BOWEN and MARY I. BOWEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
R.R. PYLE and MARGARET PYLE,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
CARLA CASTILLO, PAULA WILLIAMS, and LYNN SANCHEZ,
Defendants.
No. 31,613
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
January 5, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY, Sarah C.
Backus, District Judge
COUNSEL
Campbell & Wells, PA, John S. Campbell, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees
R.R. Pyle, Margaret Pyle, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellants
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
Defendants R.R. Pyle and Margaret Pyle (“Appellants”) appeal pro se from an order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ claim to quiet title and for slander of title. [RP 182] We proposed to dismiss for lack of a sufficiently final order in a notice of proposed summary disposition. Appellants have filed a memorandum in opposition, and Plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in support of our proposed summary disposition.
After reviewing Appellants’ memorandum, which fails to address our concerns as to finality, we are unconvinced that our proposed disposition is in error. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary dismissal, we dismiss Appellants’ appeal for lack of a sufficiently final order. See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 234-40, 824 P.2d 1033, 1036-42 (1992).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge