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 plaintiffs, Agrepina Lucero, Ronald Lucero, and Sarah Lucero, sought to prove their claim of adverse possession to quiet title in their favor over disputed land. The district court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding they did not prove their claim of adverse possession (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, September 10, 2013: The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove their claim of adverse possession and were not entitled to quiet title in their favor (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they had proven their claim of adverse possession to the disputed land and were entitled to quiet title in their favor (N/A).
• Defendants and Intervenor: It is implied that the defendants and intervenor contested the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession, leading to the court's ruling against the plaintiffs.

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiffs proved their claim of adverse possession to the disputed land and were entitled to quiet title in their favor (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order, as the matter of damages remains to be decided (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals recognized that the district court's order, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment, expressed finality. However, it noted that the matter of damages awarded to the defendants and intervenor had not been quantified, leaving the case without a final order or judgment for purposes of appeal (para 2).
  The Court declined the plaintiffs' request to consider their appeal despite the outstanding damages matter, citing a policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals. It also declined to treat the appeal as interlocutory due to procedural deficiencies and the absence of required certification language in the district court's order (paras 3-4).
  The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of a final order as the reason (para 5).