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

• Petitioner Carole Robinson appealed the district court's order regarding the award of attorney fees. The appeal followed the district court's decision on October 26, 2016, which awarded Robinson a lower amount of attorney fees than she sought. Robinson had previously filed a motion to reconsider the award, which she later withdrew. The appeal also involved the district court's refusal to allow Robinson to submit an itemized bill for legal services after the order was entered and the determination of attorney fees awarded to Lexus of Santa Fe (Garnishee), for which Robinson was partially responsible (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge, order awarding attorney fees on October 26, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner/Cross-Appellee-Appellant: Argued that the district court's determinations underlying the attorney fees award were erroneous, erred in refusing to allow submission of an itemized bill for legal services after the order, erred in the amount of attorney fees awarded, and erred in determining the amount of attorney fees awarded to Lexus of Santa Fe for which the petitioner was partially responsible (paras 2-4).
• Respondents/Cross-Appellants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Robinson a lower amount of attorney fees than she sought.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to consider Robinson's itemization of fees and costs submitted after the entry of the order awarding attorney fees.
• Whether the district court erred in not awarding Robinson all of her requested attorney fees based on her failure to provide sufficient detail about the costs and fees.
• Whether Robinson was entitled to recover attorney fees to cover the attorney fees she owes Garnishee (paras 2-5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order awarding attorney fees (para 9).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with concurrence from TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, found that Robinson did not demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in the award of attorney fees. The court concluded that Robinson's assertions and reliance on her withdrawn motion to reconsider and an itemization of costs did not show the district court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The court also noted that a district court may refuse to consider evidence in a motion to reconsider that could have been, but was not, included in the original motion. Furthermore, the court found no basis for reversal of the attorney fee award under the law of the case doctrine and concluded that Robinson was not entitled to recover attorney fees to cover the attorney fees she owes Garnishee. The court also addressed and denied Robinson's motion to amend the docketing statement, finding the issues raised were not viable appellate issues (paras 2-8).