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 a dispute over the title to property, where Roger Lord, Inc., sought to quiet title against claims by Archuleta Real Estate Solutions, Inc., and all unknown persons claiming any lien, interest, or title adverse to the plaintiff. Alfonso Archuleta, as an interested party and self-represented appellant, contested the district court's decision which favored Roger Lord, Inc.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Dona Ana County, James T. Martin, District Judge, February 28, 2017: The district court ordered quieting title and granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Roger Lord, Inc.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Roger Lord, Inc.): Argued for quieting title in their favor, effectively seeking a legal declaration that no other claims to the title exist that would challenge their ownership.
• Interested Party-Appellant (Alfonso Archuleta): Contended that there were disputed material facts that warranted a jury trial, raising various contract and equitable arguments not directly relevant to the quiet title action.

Legal Issues

• Whether there are disputed material facts that necessitate a jury trial in a quiet title action.
• Whether the appellant is entitled to a jury trial despite the motion for summary judgment and the absence of material fact disputes.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order quieting title and granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Roger Lord, Inc.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that Alfonso Archuleta, despite being self-represented, failed to meet his burden on appeal by not disputing the material facts as set forth by the Court in its notice of proposed disposition. Instead, Archuleta focused on irrelevant facts and arguments not pertinent to the quiet title action (paras 2-3). The Court reiterated that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel and must comply with court rules and procedures (para 3).
  Regarding Archuleta's argument for a jury trial, the Court noted that he did not provide a sufficient basis for why he was entitled to one in a civil case where a motion for summary judgment was filed, especially when there were no disputes of material fact and the issue could be resolved as a matter of law (para 4). The Court concluded that Archuleta had not demonstrated error in the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and to quiet title in their favor, affirming the lower court's decision (para 5).