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

• A dispute over real property led to the Cross-Defendants, Peggy J. Cordova and Kristine D. Sanchez (Appellants), being held jointly and severally liable for $21,755.27 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: The brief in chief submitted by the Appellants failed to comply with the required appellate procedure rules, lacking a coherent presentation of relevant facts, citations to the record, and developed arguments to support their claims against the district court's findings and conclusions (paras 5-6).
• Appellees: Did not file an answer brief, and therefore, no submissions from the Appellees are available for review (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellants' brief in chief complied with Rule 12-213(A) NMRA requirements regarding the summary of proceedings and argument presentation (para 3).
• Whether the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by substantial evidence as claimed by the Appellants (paras 8-14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's final judgment against the Appellants due to significant rule violations and failures in their brief in chief (para 1).

Reasons

• Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring): The decision to affirm the district court's judgment was based on the Appellants' failure to comply with appellate procedure rules, specifically their inability to present a coherent summary of proceedings and a well-developed argument. The Appellants' brief lacked citations to the record, failed to demonstrate how the issues were preserved in the court below, and did not provide authority in support of their propositions. These deficiencies precluded an effective review of the merits of their appeal. The Appellants also failed to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred, as their arguments were unclear, inadequately developed, and lacked necessary citations to the record and relevant authority. Consequently, the Appellants did not meet their burden to establish that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not supported by substantial evidence or that any conclusion of law was not supported by a finding of fact (paras 4-14).