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, acting pro se, sought relief from a cost judgment against them related to a previous case involving the defendants, who did business as Mirasol Solar Energy Systems. The plaintiffs' motion was based on Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, alleging errors in the cost judgment and presenting claims of fraud or misrepresentation. The district court denied their motion, leading to this appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge: Denied plaintiffs' Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion for relief from the cost judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the docketing statement addressed the appropriate district court rulings and established error. They believed that issues not fully addressed in a previous appeal were now properly before the court and claimed fraud or misrepresentation beyond the cost judgment.
• Defendants: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion for relief from the cost judgment for failing to sufficiently demonstrate the elements of fraud under Rule 1-060(B)(3) or a basis for finding exceptional circumstances under Rule 1-060(B)(6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for relief from the cost judgment.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy concurring, found the plaintiffs' docketing statement vague and imprecise, intertwining several matters from a previous appeal with new, some unpreserved, complaints. The court noted the plaintiffs' imprecision in arguments and procedural jumbling, which prevented orderly, substantive review. The court clarified that the only matter properly before it was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for relief from the cost judgment based on allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. The plaintiffs' response to the court's notice was found to be based on mistaken beliefs and failed to supply a clear list of issues and coherent arguments. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' characterizations of defendants' statements as newly discovered evidence of fraud or misrepresentations, nor by their arguments under the UCC and UPA, which were matters resolved in the previous appeal. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in denying relief from the cost judgment on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, and affirmed the district court's order (paras 1-11).