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 the Rogers Family Revocable Trust. The Appellee sought a declaratory judgment to be recognized as the successor trustee, which the Appellant contested, alleging misrepresentation and misconduct by the Appellee. The Appellant claimed that the Appellee fabricated facts to obtain the declaratory judgment and improperly took property items, including a recreational vehicle, which were allegedly gifted to the Appellant in the trust document (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Grant County: Granted the Appellee's emergency motion for injunction and declaratory judgment and denied the Appellant's motion to reconsider.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the Appellee misrepresented facts to the district court and that the declaratory judgment was based on fabricated facts. The Appellant also claimed that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case during the hearing (paras 2-3).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting the Appellee's emergency motion for injunction and declaratory judgment.
- Whether the Appellant was denied a fair opportunity to present her case during the hearing.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the Appellee's motion and deny the Appellant's motion to reconsider (para 6).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Hanisee and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Appellant failed to meet her burden of showing that the district court erred. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence or argument to demonstrate that the Appellee should not have been the successor trustee or that the trust was invalid. The Court also noted that the Appellant did not adequately explain what testimony she sought to give or how it would have helped her defense. The Appellant's new issue regarding the district court's inquiry about relocation assistance was deemed nonviable due to a lack of developed argument (paras 2-6).