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

• A dispute arose over the purchase price of a mobile home between the Plaintiff-Appellee and the Defendant-Appellant. The case was brought before the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County, where a judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee (para 1).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County, Jason M. Jaramillo, Metropolitan Court Judge: Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Asserted that the appellate court did not receive a complete docketing statement due to being advised by the intake clerk not to include any evidence. Also alleged technical difficulties during the virtual trial, claiming these interruptions negatively impacted her presentation (paras 2-3).
• Appellee: Filed a memorandum in support of the proposed disposition to affirm the judgment. Additionally, requested an injunction and enforcement of the payment as directed by the metropolitan court (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellate court's decision to affirm the judgment was correct, considering the Appellant's claims regarding the incomplete docketing statement and technical difficulties during the virtual trial (paras 2-4).
• Whether the Appellee's requests for an injunction and enforcement of payment fall within the appellate court's jurisdiction (para 5).

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Jane B. Yohalem, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Megan P. Duffy concurring. The appellate court found that the Appellant did not demonstrate how the alleged technical difficulties during the virtual trial constituted reversible error or prevented her from presenting her case. The court also noted that the Appellant did not present any new facts, law, or arguments that would persuade the court to alter its proposed disposition. Regarding the Appellee's requests for an injunction and enforcement of payment, the court clarified that such matters were outside its jurisdiction, as it is limited to reviewing the issues raised by the Appellant concerning the judgment below. The appellate court's jurisdiction does not extend to enforcing judgments, which is vested in the court that entered the judgment (paras 2-6).