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 dispute over the title to property described in a 2005 deed. The plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings at the close of evidence at trial to conform to the evidence presented, which included the deed in question. The defendant had not been on notice that the evidence was introduced for any purpose other than to establish the claims raised in the pleadings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred by denying their motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence presented at trial. They contended that the defendant had impliedly consented to the trial of title to the property by allowing the deed to be introduced into evidence without objection (paras 2-3).
• Defendant: The summary does not explicitly detail the defendant's submissions, but it is implied that the defendant opposed the plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings and did not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the trial of the title to the property described in the 2005 deed (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence.
• Whether the defendant had impliedly consented to the trial of title to the property described in the 2005 deed by not objecting to the deed's introduction into evidence.
• Whether the plaintiffs preserved any argument for appeal on the question of a lack of prejudice to the defendant by the amendment of the pleadings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order amending its judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(A) NMRA and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings. It found that the defendant had neither expressly nor impliedly consented to the trial of any quiet title action to the property described in the 2005 deed. The court distinguished the case from a federal case cited by the plaintiffs, noting that in this case, the defendant was not on notice that the evidence was being introduced for any purpose other than to establish the claims raised in the pleadings. Furthermore, the court adhered to New Mexico law stating that implied consent to a new theory is generally absent when the evidence is relevant to other pleaded issues. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to preserve any argument regarding a lack of prejudice to the defendant for appeal, as they did not demonstrate that the issue was preserved at trial (paras 2-5).