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 an appeal from the district court's final decree of dissolution between Ernestine Esparza (Petitioner-Appellee) and Frank Esparza (Respondent-Appellant). The Respondent appealed the decision but faced a challenge regarding the finality of the order due to a pending motion for reconsideration he filed, which had not yet been ruled on by the district court.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY, John F. Davis, District Judge: The district court issued a final decree of dissolution, which was subsequently appealed by the Respondent.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that dismissing his appeal would prevent him from appealing the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. He requested the Court of Appeals to either stay his appeal pending the district court's decision on his motion for reconsideration or allow him to reinstate his appeal after the district court's ruling to preserve his right to appeal the underlying decision.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should dismiss the Respondent's appeal as premature due to the pending motion for reconsideration at the district court, which could alter, amend, or moot the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Respondent's appeal as premature, indicating that the proper time for filing the notice of appeal is within thirty days of the district court’s order ruling on Respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and LINDA M. VANZI, J., concurring): The Court found that appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final judgments or decisions, and a post-judgment motion like the one filed by the Respondent renders the underlying order non-final for purposes of appeal. The Court clarified that the time for filing a notice of appeal does not begin until the district court enters an express disposition on that motion. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Respondent's appeal as premature, noting that the Respondent's efforts to "preserve" and "perfect" his appeal were unnecessary since the appeal period had not yet commenced due to the pending motion for reconsideration.