Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 39 - Judgments, Costs, Appeals - cited by 2,984 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,502 documents
Decision Content
MACLELLAN V. EYERMANN
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
JOANN M. MACLELLAN, Individually
and as Guardian and Trustee of DAVID
TIMOTHY KING, DANIEL J. KING, and
JOHN R. KING,
Claimants-Appellants,
v.
VIRGINIA N. EYERMANN,
Personal
Representative-Appellee,
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
PHILLIP TIMOTHY KING, Deceased.
No. 33,123
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 3, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY, J.C.
Robinson, District Judge
COUNSEL
Scott Hulse P.C., Casey S. Stevenson, El Paso, TX, for Appellants
M. Yvonne Gonzalez, Silver City, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
{1} Appellant, JoAnn M. MacLellan, Individually and as Guardian and Trustee of David Timothy King, Daniel J. King, and John R. King, seeks to appeal from the district court’s amended order, dated July 31, 2013, denying her request to vacate the district court’s order, dated July 2, 2013, denying her claims. [DS 2, RP 397, 357] We issued a notice proposing to summarily remand to allow the district court to consider an outstanding motion for relief from judgment filed by MacLellan in the district court on August 1, 2013. MacLellan did not file a response to our proposed disposition, but the Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillip Timothy King, Virginia N. Eyermann, filed a timely memorandum in opposition.
{2} We continue to believe that MacLellan’s post-judgment motion should be construed as a motion under NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1953), and that in the interests of judicial economy, this case should be remanded to the district court so that it can rule on this motion. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge