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 between Patrick D. Tays (Plaintiff) and S. Craig Tays and Melvin E. Tays (Defendants) over the settlement of a trust and the awarding of attorney and accountant fees from the trust property. This litigation follows a previous matter where a settlement agreement was reached but not signed by the Plaintiff, concerning the division of the same trust property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that he was denied due process and proper notice regarding the hearing on Defendant's motion to settle the trust in accordance with the settlement agreement. He also contended that he did not agree to the settlement agreement from a prior matter and never signed it, challenging the district court's dismissal based on this agreement without ordering an accounting of the trust property.
• Defendants: Presented evidence that a settlement agreement was reached in a previous litigation involving the same parties and trust property, which Plaintiff later refused to sign. They argued that the district court had correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, preventing the Plaintiff from relitigating the existence and terms of the settlement agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff was denied due process and proper notice in connection with the hearing on Defendant's motion to settle the trust.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case based on a settlement agreement reached in a prior matter without ordering an accounting of the trust property.
• Whether the district court violated Rule 1-054.1 NMRA in relation to the order filed.
• Whether the district court erred in accepting an order drafted by Defendant verbatim.
• Whether the district court clerk improperly failed to file several of Plaintiff's petitions.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney and accountant fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and the award of attorney and accountant fees.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge M. Monica Zamora authoring the opinion, held that the Plaintiff received reasonable notice of the hearing and a fair opportunity to be heard, thus not being denied due process (para 2). The court also found that the district court did not err in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel regarding the settlement agreement from a prior matter, as the Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue previously (para 3). The Mediation Procedures Act, cited by the Plaintiff, was deemed not applicable as it became effective after the 2007 Order that confirmed the settlement agreement (para 4). The court further held that Rule 1-054.1 NMRA was not violated as the district court had reached a decision on all issues before it at the conclusion of the hearing and merely asked the parties to prepare an order memorializing its rulings (para 5). The court was unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's argument that the district court abdicated its responsibility by accepting an order drafted by Defendant verbatim, finding that the order accurately reflected the district court’s oral rulings (para 6). The court also found no due process violation regarding the filing of Plaintiff's petitions, noting that the district court had disposed of all issues pending at the time and denied all subsequent pleadings filed by the Plaintiff (para 7). Lastly, the court declined to address the argument that the trustees mismanaged the trust by not paying attorney and accountant fees, as it was not raised below, and rejected Plaintiff's remaining contention regarding the authorization of fees (para 8).