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 over a mobile home that was also the subject of a separate lawsuit brought by a purchase-money creditor. The district court had previously authorized judgment against the Defendants, Debbie Pena and Richard Martinez, but decided to amend this judgment in light of the separate lawsuit's developments.

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County, June 13, 2011: Issued an order addressing outstanding damages.
• District Court of Rio Arriba County, December 7, 2011: Issued another order addressing outstanding damages.
• District Court of Rio Arriba County, February 9, 2012: Denied Defendants' motion for reconsideration and motion to strike, indicating an intention to amend the underlying judgment against Defendants due to developments in a separate lawsuit involving the mobile home.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued against the district court's February 9, 2012, order, seeking reconsideration and a motion to strike.
• Plaintiffs-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's February 9, 2012, order denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration and motion to strike is final for purposes of appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals determined that the February 9, 2012, order was not final and therefore not appealable because it indicated the district court's intention to amend the underlying judgment against Defendants. This decision was based on the principle that an order or judgment is not considered final unless all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case disposed of by the trial court to the fullest extent possible. The existence of pending actions by the district court, specifically the amendment of the underlying judgment due to developments in a separate lawsuit, precluded the order from being final.