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 an appeal by Charles M. Cruikshank, a self-represented litigant, against the order of complete settlement of the estate of Hannah Holliday Stewart. Cruikshank challenges the settlement handled by Lewis M. Stewart, Jr., the personal representative of the estate.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Charles M. Cruikshank): Requested an extension of time to respond to the Personal Representative’s memorandum in support of the court's notice of proposed disposition and reiterated the same six issues previously raised in his docketing statement without providing new facts or authorities to support his position (paras 3-4).
• Appellee (Lewis M. Stewart, Jr.): Filed a memorandum in support of the court's notice of proposed disposition, arguing in favor of affirming the order of complete settlement of the estate (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant provided sufficient new facts or authorities to persuade the court that the proposed summary disposition was in error.
• Whether the appellant's unfamiliarity with Rule 12-208 NMRA governing docketing statements affects his compliance with court rules as a self-represented litigant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the order of complete settlement of the estate of Hannah Holliday Stewart (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges M. Monica Zamora and Daniel J. Gallegos concurring, found the appellant's arguments unpersuasive and noted that he did not provide new facts or authorities to challenge the proposed summary disposition effectively. The Court emphasized that in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which Cruikshank failed to do. Additionally, the Court held Cruikshank to the same standard of compliance with court rules as licensed attorneys, despite his pro se status, and noted that his unfamiliarity with Rule 12-208 NMRA does not afford him any special privileges. Based on these considerations and the presumption of correctness in the rulings of the district court, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision (paras 3-6).