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 Landlord won a judgment in magistrate court against the Tenants for restitution, which included surrendering possession of the rental property, payment of $737 in rent, late fees, and costs, and termination of the rental agreement. The Tenants appealed to the district court, which upheld the magistrate court's decision. The district court, however, denied the Landlord's request for attorney fees. The Landlord filed a motion to reconsider this denial, which was also denied by the district court. The Landlord then cross-appealed the denial of the motion to reconsider, but not the denial of attorney fees itself.

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Awarded judgment for restitution to Landlord, including possession of property, $737 in rent, late fees, costs, and termination of rental agreement.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, Daniel A. Sanchez, District Judge: Upheld magistrate court's decision but denied Landlord's request for attorney fees.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, June 7, 2011: Affirmed district court's decision and dismissed Landlord's cross-appeal regarding the motion to reconsider the denial of attorney fees.

Parties' Submissions

• Landlord: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for attorney fees pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-48 (1995).
• Tenants: Argued for dismissal of Landlord’s appeal due to failure to timely respond to the Court's order to show cause and supported the district court's award of $0 in attorney fees.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Landlord's motion to reconsider the denial of attorney fees.
• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the Landlord's appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling denying the Landlord's motion to reconsider the denial of attorney fees.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Michael E. Vigil concurring, found that the Landlord's procedural approach was not fatal to his appeal despite not recommending it. The Court addressed the jurisdiction issue, stating that the appeal was not dismissed because the Landlord eventually provided a copy of the district court's order denying the motion to reconsider, which was sufficient under the rules. The Court reviewed the denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and found none, as the Landlord had directed his arguments at the judgment he sought to reopen rather than explaining why the denial of the renewed motion to reconsider was incorrect. The Court also noted that it could not reach the merits of the Landlord's appeal due to an inadequate record, specifically the absence of the complaint and transcripts from the district court hearings, which precluded analysis of whether the district court erred in not applying Section 47-8-48 and awarding attorney fees.