Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 34 - Court Structure and Administration - cited by 2,163 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,514 documents
Rule Set 3 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the Metropolitan Courts - cited by 701 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Dillard v. Dillard - cited by 58 documents
Michaluk v. Burke - cited by 65 documents
Decision Content
COX V. LOHMANN
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
ROGER COX and ASSOCIATES
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AARON LOHMANN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31,810
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 29, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Valerie A. Huling, District Judge
COUNSEL
Robert S. Simon, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill, P.C., Ronald A. Tucker, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR:CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARCIA, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a district court on-the-record judgment dismissing his appeal from a metropolitan court on Plaintiff’s complaint for rent due. We proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
Defendant’s issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff had standing to bring suit in the metropolitan court. As we stated in our calendar notice, we believe that the district court properly determined [RP 116] that Defendant’s issue is unreviewable because he did not preserve a record of the metropolitan court hearing in this matter. Metropolitan courts are courts of record in civil actions. See NMSA 1978, § 34-8A-6(B) (1993); Rule 1-073 NMRA. A party wanting to preserve a recording of the proceedings is required to make the request. Rule 3-708(A) NMRA. Here, neither party requested a recording of the proceedings.
In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that we can overlook the lack of a complete record, and may limit our review to the pleadings in the record proper. We conclude that this would be unfair to Plaintiff, because it would ignore any evidence in its favor presented at the hearing. Defendant’s argument goes against our longstanding case law on this. See, e.g., Michaluk v. Burke, 105 N.M. 670, 676-77, 735 P.2d 1176, 1182-83 (Ct. App. 1987) (“Where the record on appeal is incomplete, the ruling of the trial court is presumed to be supported by the evidence.”); Dillard v. Dillard, 104 N.M. 763, 765, 727 P.2d 71, 73 (Ct. App. 1986) (observing that it is the duty of the appellant to provide a record adequate to review the issues on appeal). Although we find this to be unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal, we do note that the record indicates that Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the original lessor. [RP 53]
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge