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

• Plaintiff Judy Sangster and Defendant Gregory Nick Paul Ortiz ended their nearly thirty-year cohabitation relationship, leading to a legal dispute over the distribution of real and personal property and financial assets. During their relationship, they lived together as husband and wife, had three children, and shared various assets, including homes and vehicles. After their final separation, Sangster initiated legal action to secure a share of property and assets held solely in Ortiz's name, under various legal theories.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (Sangster): Argued for a share in the real and personal property and financial assets contributed to during the relationship with Ortiz, which were held solely in Ortiz’s name. Legal theories included dissolution of domestic partnership, unjust enrichment, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and common-law marriage.
• Defendant (Ortiz): Contended that the district court erred by not applying res judicata to bar Sangster’s claims, argued against the consolidation of this case with a 1998 paternity suit, and disputed the district court's adoption of Sangster’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ortiz also challenged the judgments in favor of Sangster and the involuntary plaintiffs, Michael and Caitlin Ortiz.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by failing to apply res judicata to bar Sangster’s claims.
• Whether the district court erred in not consolidating the current case with a 1998 paternity suit involving the same parties.
• Whether the district court erred by adopting Sangster’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Whether the district court erred in its judgments in favor of Sangster and the involuntary plaintiffs, Michael and Caitlin Ortiz.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order distributing certain real and personal property and financial assets after nearly thirty years of cohabitation between Sangster and Ortiz.

Reasons

• ZAMORA, Judge (VIGIL, Chief Judge, and HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that Ortiz failed to meet his burden of proof regarding the application of res judicata because he did not present evidence as to the specific claims resolved in the 1998 case (para 7).
  The Court held that the district court did not err in denying Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment regarding res judicata and found no basis for consolidation of the 1998 case with the current case, as Ortiz did not demonstrate that the two cases involved common claims warranting consolidation (paras 8-9).
  The Court rejected Ortiz’s argument that the district court erred by adopting Sangster’s findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim, noting that the district court, in large part, rejected Sangster’s requested findings (para 12).
  The Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Sangster, finding substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings regarding the distribution of assets, including the Council Oak Road house and its furnishings, the Pontiac, and the retirement money (paras 13-24).
  The Court dismissed Ortiz’s arguments regarding the judgments in favor of Michael and Caitlin Ortiz due to Ortiz’s failure to clearly articulate the basis of his argument or cite relevant authority or record evidence (para 26).
  The Court awarded attorney fees and costs to Sangster on appeal, finding some of Ortiz’s issues on appeal to be frivolous and his presentation deficient, thereby justifying sanctions under the circumstances (paras 27-28).
  The Court reminded Ortiz’s counsel of the importance of adhering to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and cautioned against future violations (para 29).