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 Jesus Carreno, the Plaintiff, and Peter Gomez and Mary Ellen McAfee, the Defendants, along with other named defendants, regarding interests in premises adverse to the Plaintiff. The core issue arose from the Defendants' claim of not being notified about a hearing or the issuance of a judgment against them prior to its entry.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Glenn T. Ellington, District Judge: Judgment entered against Defendants Peter Gomez and Mary Ellen McAfee.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Asserted they were not notified of a hearing or the issuance of the judgment prior to its entry.
• Plaintiff: In response to the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, agreed with the Court's proposal to reverse and remand for a presentment hearing (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants were properly notified of the hearing or issuance of the judgment prior to its entry.

Disposition

• The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to conduct a presentment hearing prior to entry of a final judgment (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, with Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring:
  The Court proposed to reverse and remand the case for a presentment hearing due to the Defendants' claim of not being notified about the hearing or judgment issuance. Both parties agreed with this proposed disposition (para 1-3).
  The Defendants raised new issues and requested additional relief related to the Plaintiff's actions post-judgment. However, these issues were based on facts not present in the record on appeal and thus were not considered by the Court (para 2).
  The unanimous agreement among the parties on the need for a presentment hearing prior to the final judgment entry led to the decision to reverse and remand the case for that purpose (para 3).