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

• Respondent, Marcelina Martinez, filed a commercial lien against the Petitioners, claiming it to be consensual based on an "administrative process" she initiated, which included an "Affidavit of Truth" and subsequent filings due to Petitioners' non-response. The lien was for two million eight hundred forty thousand dollars. The district court declared the lien a non-consensual common law lien and voided it under the Lien Protection Efficiency Act (LPEA).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Francis J. Mathew, District Judge: The district court order declared Respondent's commercial lien to be a non-consensual common law lien and voided it pursuant to the LPEA.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the lien was consensual, based on Petitioners' non-response to her "administrative process," which included an "Affidavit of Truth" and subsequent filings. Respondent contended that this non-response constituted consent to the lien and that the lien was a legitimate commercial, common law remedy not intended for adjudication in a statutory court.
• Petitioners-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that Respondent failed to meet her burden to show cause as to why the lien should not be stricken.
• Whether non-response to an individual’s self-created “administrative process” constitutes consent to having a lien placed on one’s property.
• Whether the burden was on Petitioners to prove that the lien fell within the definition of a non-consensual common law lien under the LPEA.
• Whether Respondent was entitled to a jury at the show cause hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order declaring the lien a non-consensual common law lien and voiding it under the LPEA.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court was not persuaded by Respondent's argument that the lien was consensual, noting the lack of legal authority supporting the notion that non-response to a self-created "administrative process" could constitute consent for a lien. The court also highlighted that the statutory scheme of the LPEA placed the burden on the Respondent to show cause why the lien should not be stricken once Petitioners petitioned the district court. Furthermore, the court declined to consider Respondent's contention that she was entitled to a jury at the show cause hearing, as this issue was not raised in the docketing statement nor was a motion made to amend the docketing statement to include this issue. The court concluded that non-response to an individual’s self-created “administrative process” does not constitute consent to having a lien placed on one’s real or personal property and affirmed the district court's decision (paras 1-7).