AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a judgment against Michael J. Gopin (Defendant) for violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA), which included treble damage awards and civil penalties totaling over $2.5 million. Following the judgment, the district court issued a writ of ne exeat to prevent the Defendant from leaving New Mexico or dissipating assets. The writ's bond was initially set at $100,000, based on the sale price of a property owned by the Defendant, and was later increased to $500,000, then to $1,000,000, and eventually reduced to $250,000, which the Defendant paid. The appeal focuses on an order increasing the ne exeat bond by an additional $120,000 due to alleged continued dissipation of assets by the Defendant (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Atherton v. Gopin (Atherton I), 2015-NMCA-003: The court issued a judgment against the Defendant for violations of the UPA, including treble damage awards and civil penalties (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Attorney General: Argued that the Defendant continued to dissipate his assets from New Mexico, warranting an increase in the ne exeat bond (para 6).
• Defendant: Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support increasing the bond, argued the increase violated the UPA, claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the increase, and alleged a deprivation of due process (paras 13-30).

Legal Issues

• Whether a district court may increase the amount of a ne exeat bond after it is set (para 1).
• Whether the increase in the ne exeat bond violated the UPA (para 18).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support increasing the bond (para 21).
• Whether the Defendant was deprived of his right to due process when the district court ordered the ne exeat bond increased (para 30).

Disposition

• The district court's order increasing the amount of the writ of ne exeat bond was affirmed (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in increasing the ne exeat bond. The court reasoned that the writ of ne exeat and its associated bond are not part of the judgment but are means to effectuate a remedy by keeping a party within the jurisdiction. The court found that the increase in the bond was not contrary to the UPA, as the statute does not abrogate the common law which allows for such bonds to be conditioned on the preservation of assets. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the district court's decision to increase the bond, including the Defendant's actions related to the sale and transfer of the Solano property. Finally, the court concluded that the Defendant was not deprived of due process, as he had notice of and was present at the hearing on the motion to increase the bond, and had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments (paras 7-34).