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 appellant, Paul Saavedra, claimed caretaker expenses from the estate of his deceased mother, Lupe P. Saavedra, for services provided from 2003 until her death in 2007. These services included feeding, bathing, dressing, diapering, and providing round-the-clock care. The claim was denied by the estate's personal representative, Marc Saavedra, also a son of the decedent, on the grounds of being untimely and lacking evidence of an express or implied contract for compensation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his claim for caretaker expenses was timely and that he had an equitable claim against the estate as a devisee under the decedent's will. He contended that there was an express agreement allowing him to stay in the family home as compensation for his caretaker services (paras 4, 9).
• Appellee: Denied the appellant's claim on the basis that it was untimely and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of an express or implied contract for compensation for the caretaker services provided to the decedent (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's claim for caretaker expenses against the estate was untimely.
• Whether the appellant provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that his caretaker services were rendered gratuitously and to prove the existence of an express or implied contract for compensation (paras 4, 9).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the appellant's claims against the estate for caretaker expenses was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• Judges Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin concurred in the opinion authored by Judge Garcia. The court found the appellant's claim untimely under NMSA 1978, Section 45-3-803(C), which mandates that claims against a decedent's estate must be presented within specific time frames. The court also determined that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that his services were rendered gratuitously, as he did not provide evidence of an express or implied contract for compensation. The court concluded that the appellant's status as a devisee under the decedent's will did not exempt him from the statutory limitations period for filing claims against the estate. The court further noted that the appellant's argument for an equitable claim was inapplicable, as his claim was against the estate itself and not for recovery of improperly distributed property. Substantial evidence supported the district court's findings, and the appellant's claim for unjust enrichment was not substantiated by credible evidence beyond his own testimony (paras 4-13).