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

• Attorney J. Robert Beauvais, representing himself, appealed against decisions related to the accrual of post-judgment interest on an attorney charging lien. The appeal stemmed from a memorandum decision and an order addressing the calculation of this interest following a settlement agreement in a case involving Timberon Water and Sanitation District (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County, November 30, 2016, and February 10, 2017: Issued a memorandum decision and an order on the accrual of post-judgment interest on the attorney charging lien (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (J. Robert Beauvais): Challenged the district court's decisions on permitting partial payments in the interpleader action, the calculation of interest, and the jurisdiction of the district court over the interpleader action without requiring the entire disputed amount to be deposited in the court registry. Argued that Rule 1-022 NMRA does not permit partial payments and maintained entitlement to receive post-judgment interest until the judgment was fully satisfied, despite acknowledging the settlement agreement authorized partial payments (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (Timberon Water and Sanitation District): Supported the proposed disposition by the Court of Appeals to affirm the district court's decisions (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's decisions regarding the calculation of interest were inconsistent with the settlement agreement or Rule 1-022 NMRA (para 2).
• Whether Rule 1-022 NMRA permits partial payments in the context of this case (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on the accrual of post-judgment interest on the attorney charging lien (para 4).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with concurrence from LINDA M. VANZI and MEGAN P. DUFFY, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not err in its determination of interest calculations. The appellant's arguments were considered and addressed in the notice of proposed disposition, and the court found no persuasive authority to support the appellant's position against partial payments or the entitlement to continuous post-judgment interest until full satisfaction of the judgment. The court emphasized that the burden was on the appellant to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which was not met in this case (paras 2-4).