Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,514 documents
Decision Content
GONZALES V. GONZALES
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF GONZALO GONZALES, Deceased
MARCY GONZALES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL GONZALES, et al.,
Respondents,
and
ARNOLD LAREZ,
Respondent-Appellant.
No. 31,534
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
July 25, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY,
Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge
COUNSEL
B. Cullen Hallmark, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Arnold Larez, Dexter, NM, Pro Se Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
Appellant Arnold Larez (Larez) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims for wages and personal property and determination that his claims are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. [RP Vol.13/2543, 2575] Our notice proposed to affirm and Larez filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Larez’s arguments and therefore affirm.
In response to our notice, Larez states that he and his attorney were not properly included in the court session that preceded entry of the July 8, 2011 order. [MIO 1] This information does not change our view—as detailed in our notice—that the district court properly ruled that Larez’s claims were barred because of the preclusive effect of prior proceedings and failure to comply with the time limits for presenting claims which arise after the death of a decedent. We further acknowledge Larez’ argument that his motion for reconsideration (motion) [RP Vol.13/2457] of the April 1, 2011 order dismissing the claims [RP Vol.13/2543] was timely filed. [MIO 1-2] For reasons detailed in our notice, we view his motion as a Rule 1-060(B)(2) NMRA motion and conclude that the district court properly denied Larez’s requested relief.
For reasons set forth herein and in our notice, we affirm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge