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 the plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the Estate of Robert L. Nieto (the Decedent), who filed a complaint against the Decedent's family members for taking possession of items that allegedly belonged to the estate. The plaintiff sought to represent the estate pro se in the appeal against the district court's decisions regarding her complaint and subsequent motions to reconsider.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, May 7, 2019: Issued a judgment on the plaintiff's complaint, granting in part and denying in part (N/A).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied the plaintiff's third motion to reconsider the May 7, 2019 judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Decedent's family members wrongfully took possession of items belonging to the estate. The plaintiff also contended that she should be allowed to represent the estate pro se and requested the court to appoint her an attorney due to her inability to afford one and her unsuccessful attempts to find representation (paras 2, 4).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff, as a pro se personal representative of an estate, can represent the estate in court.
• Whether the district court's orders should be withdrawn if the plaintiff was not able to represent the estate without counsel.
• Whether the plaintiff's third motion for reconsideration established grounds under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA for relief from the district court’s original judgment on her complaint.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the plaintiff's third motion for reconsideration and rejected the plaintiff's claims of error.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Kristina Bogardus, and Judge Briana H. Zamora, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court acknowledged the plaintiff's difficult position but explained that it could not appoint an attorney to represent the estate. It also noted that New Mexico case law does not extensively cover the ability of non-attorneys to represent an estate, but federal case law may serve as guidance (para 2).
  The Court clarified that the plaintiff's appeal could not prevail on the merits because she did not demonstrate that her third motion for reconsideration established grounds under Rule 1-060(B) for relief from the district court’s May 7, 2019 judgment. The plaintiff did not appeal the original judgment or the first order denying her timely motion to reconsider, which left her bound by those judgments (para 3).
  The Court explained that successive motions to reconsider filed after thirty days of the underlying judgment do not extend the time for appealing the underlying judgment and do not permit the moving party to directly appeal the underlying judgment for simple legal error. The plaintiff's second and third motions to reconsider needed to establish grounds under Rule 1-060(B), and each order on the plaintiff's motions to reconsider was final and needed to have been separately appealed to bring those orders under review (para 4).
  The Court concluded that the plaintiff's third motion for reconsideration and her appeal, which simply alleged error in the district court’s ruling on the complaint based on a more refined factual and legal argument, were insufficient to demonstrate grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B) (para 5).