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

• DeWayne Beagles, the Appellant, appealed against the district court's decision which denied his second motion to set aside an order from October 1, 2010. This order had granted J. Robert Beauvais, the Cross-Appellant, a charging lien against judgment proceeds. The core of the dispute revolves around the propriety of the notice of hearing for the September 2010 hearing, which was sent to the address of Appellant's brother, also involved in the charging lien, and previously used by Appellant for correspondence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was no evidence to show that the mailing address used for the notice of hearing, which belonged to his brother, was his last known address. He contended that he was not properly served with the notice of hearing and that he never received it.
• Cross-Appellant: Did not file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition by the Court, effectively not contesting the Appellant's arguments in this appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Appellant's motion to set aside the order granting the Cross-Appellant a charging lien against judgment proceeds.
• Whether the notice of hearing was properly served to the Appellant at his last known address.

Disposition

• The district court's order denying the Appellant's motion to set aside the order granting the Cross-Appellant a charging lien against judgment proceeds was affirmed.
• The appeal for sanctions against the Appellant and his counsel under Rule 1-011 NMRA was denied.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Cynthia A. Fry with concurrence from Judges Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee, found sufficient evidence to support the district court's factual determination that the notice of hearing was properly mailed to the last known address of the Appellant. This determination was based on the Appellant's prior use of the address in correspondence and the lack of a designated permanent change of address. The Court deferred to the trier of fact on matters of conflicting evidence and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Appellant's motion to set aside the order. The Court's decision was also influenced by the Appellant's failure to prove that he was unaware of the hearing, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of the notice service (paras 1-4).