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 Plaintiff appealed from a judgment issued on March 31, 2011. Subsequent to this judgment, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 13, 2011. Before the district court could rule on this motion, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 2011. The district court held a hearing on the motion but declined to consider its merits due to the pending appeal, which it believed divested it of jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, March 31, 2011: Issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, June 13, 2011: Declined to consider the merits of the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration due to the pending appeal, asserting lack of jurisdiction.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the motion to reconsider should be viewed under either Rule 1-052(D) NMRA or Rule 1-059(E) NMRA because it seeks an amendment of the trial court’s findings and conclusions. The Plaintiff contended that the motion was compelled to be filed within thirty days of the March 31, 2011 order due to its untimeliness under the ten-day requirement of the aforementioned rules.
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider findings of fact and conclusions of law should be considered under Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, Rule 1-052(D) NMRA, or Rule 1-059(E) NMRA.
• Whether the notice of appeal filed by the Plaintiff was premature due to the pending motion to reconsider.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order, noting that the district court still had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Vigil, J., and Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider was appropriately considered under Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, as it was filed outside the ten-day period required by Rules 1-052(D) and 1-059(E) but within the thirty-day period allowed by Section 39-1-1. The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff's argument that the motion should be viewed under the rules that require filing within ten days of judgment, noting that the motion specifically asked the district court to reconsider rather than amend its findings and conclusions. The Court determined that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed because it was submitted before the district court ruled on the motion to reconsider. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order, allowing the district court to regain jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.