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 an appeal by Defendant J & C Victor 2006 Trust (JCV) against the denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment related to water rights in the Animas Underground Basin. The Office of the State Engineer (OSE) had filed a motion for summary judgment in 2013 to establish water diversion amounts, which was granted by the district court. JCV, claiming inadequate notice, sought to have the judgment set aside in 2019, particularly concerning their failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant (JCV): Argued that it received inadequate notice of OSE’s motion for summary judgment, as the notice did not comply with the district court’s case management order requirements. JCV claimed this lack of a brief description of the relief sought in OSE’s motion constituted insufficient notice (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (OSE): Contended that JCV was reasonably apprised of the action through a notice of adjudication sent by first-class mail and had an opportunity to respond as stated in the monthly adjudication report, thus receiving constitutionally sufficient notice under New Mexico law (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice provided to JCV regarding OSE’s motion for summary judgment was constitutionally sufficient under New Mexico law (para 2).
• Whether the 2013 Order was a default judgment against JCV and if it should be set aside under Rule 1-055(C) NMRA and Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of JCV’s motion to set aside the default judgment (paras 10, 15).

Reasons

• HANISEE, Judge; GERALD E. BACA, Judge; MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge (concurring in result only):
  The court found that JCV received adequate notice of the motion for summary judgment through the notice of adjudication and monthly adjudication reports, which were reasonably calculated to apprise JCV of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The court determined that the notice met the constitutional requirements under New Mexico law and that the district court’s failure to include a brief description of the relief sought in the notice did not constitute a constitutional violation (paras 2-9).
  Regarding the argument that the 2013 Order was a default judgment, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to determine if the order constituted a default or summary judgment. Under either determination, JCV could not attain relief from the judgment under Rule 1-060(B) because it did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying relief. The court also found that JCV’s claim of inadequate notice was unfounded, as the notice was constitutionally adequate. Additionally, the court held that JCV’s potential meritorious defenses did not constitute "good cause shown" for failing to respond, thus affirming the district court’s decision not to set aside the final judgment (paras 10-15).